Oral Answers to Questions

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Electricity Generation

David Marshall: What assessment he has made of the electricity generation capacity in Scotland.

David Cairns: The most recent estimate is that Scotland has about 10.5 GW of generating capacity.

David Marshall: Generating capacity has an effect on prices. As my hon. Friend is aware, Ofgem has launched a welcome investigation into the electricity and gas markets. In view of the similarities between the price increases imposed on consumers by energy companies, will the Minister ask Ofgem specifically to look into the possibility that the companies are operating a nice, cosy cartel against the public interest and are a major cause of fuel poverty?

David Cairns: My hon. Friend has reflected the concerns of many by talking about fuel poverty. As he is aware, given that in today's climate the cost of a barrel of oil is now in excess of $100, the issue affects not only the UK but countries right around the world. My hon. Friend is right to point out that Ofgem's role is to ensure that no cosy cartel exists, and I am sure that that will be part of the review that it is undertaking.
	As a Government, we can ensure that those discussions can take place. My hon. Friends in the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions have been talking with Ofgem representatives about those matters, too. In the meantime, we will continue our attack on fuel poverty through measures such as the winter fuel payment—now worth up to £300 in households where somebody is aged 80 or more—and by ensuring that the great inroads that we have made to reduce fuel poverty are not undone by rising fuel prices.

John Thurso: Does the Minister agree that it is important to ensure Scotland's future generating capacity? In that regard, is he aware that the Pentland firth is estimated to have 31 GW of potential? People on both sides of the firth are working to exploit that potential. The last Scottish Executive helped, and the current one is helping; on the other hand, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform is being somewhat slow. What can the Minister do to help that UK Department ensure that there is a UK supply of electricity from the far north?

David Cairns: I commend the hon. Gentleman for his question. He is, of course, a distinguished former Liberal Democrat Scottish spokesperson, and if press reports are to be believed, he may be back in that job tomorrow. I look forward to welcoming him back to the post, following the outcome of this evening's vote.
	As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am well aware of the potential of Solway firth; I have been to look at it twice in the past couple of months, and the Minister for Energy has been to the hon. Gentleman's constituency as well.
	I do not accept that DBERR is dragging its heels. We have ensured the correct levels of subsidy at the correct time in the development of technology. Because we have international targets to meet and the threat of climate change is real, those have been designed predominantly to meet the needs of onshore wind technology. However, the next generation of tidal and wave power will have a part to play and the Government stand ready to assist it.

Anne Moffat: Does my hon. Friend agree that nuclear power generates more electricity than any other form of power in Scotland, and that the Scottish Executive are irresponsible and short-sighted to rule out building any new nuclear power stations?

David Cairns: Factually, my hon. Friend is entirely correct. Nuclear power is responsible for producing about 40 per cent. of Scotland's electricity. It should be part of a balanced portfolio of energy that includes renewables, which have a very important part to play, as well as clean coal technology and carbon capture and storage. I also agree with my hon. Friend's criticism of the Scottish Executive.

Michael Weir: The Minister is, of course, quite wrong. The last figures from DBERR itself show that nuclear power made up only 26 per cent. of generation and was falling as renewables rise. Is the future not with renewable energy, such as that to be produced by the Glendoe hydro-station, which, when it comes on line, will produce enough energy to cover the whole of Glasgow?

David Cairns: I support the Glendoe hydro-scheme, which the previous Labour-led Scottish Executive consented to. The fact is that, even if we accept the hon. Gentleman's figures—which are only the case because of temporary outages at Hunterston—historically speaking, nuclear power has been responsible for 40 per cent. of Scotland's electricity. How would the hon. Gentleman replace that? He could not replace it with intermittent renewables, and he is attempting to con the Scottish people if he says that he can.

Devolution

Gordon Prentice: What recent assessment he has made of powers and functions which might be transferred between the UK Parliament and the Scottish Parliament.

Des Browne: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, the time has come to assess how we can strengthen devolution. The cross-border, cross-party Scottish parliamentary review is the right place for that assessment to be made and I am not in a position to prejudge its outcome.

Gordon Prentice: We have another review, but I remind my friend that Joel Barnett called for a review of the Barnett settlement, which gives to Scotland £1,500 more in public spending per head than it does to England. My question is this: should Holyrood have additional tax or revenue-raising powers, and if so, what are the implications for the Barnett formula?

Des Browne: I say to my hon. Friend that, as he is well aware, the Scottish Parliament has tax-raising powers under the Scotland Act 1998, but it has chosen not to exercise them. Members of the Scottish Parliament, in a motion that they overwhelmingly passed, accepted that proper financial accountability must be looked at in the context of the review, and we shall have to wait and see what comes out of that process. The Barnett formula has delivered stable and transparent settlements for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales for about 30 years. Despite the lurid headlines in some of the newspapers this morning, there are no plans for any review of the Barnett formula.

Angus Robertson: Last August, the First Minister called for the reconvening of the Joint Ministerial Committees, and we have heard today that that will happen, which my colleagues and I welcome. We also learned today that when Scottish voters last year were deciding in favour of change, there was an embarrassing secret meeting between the Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal Democrats to stop that change. Still going against public opinion, the Prime Minister says that he wants to take away democratic powers that the Scottish Parliament holds as part of the devolution settlement. Which powers would those be?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman sometimes gets slightly over-excited in these circumstances. We saw there a fine example of the Scottish National party's attitude to Scotland. His question was not, "another day, another grievance", but "another day, another three grievances". As I recollect—I was not party to any of the discussions—in the aftermath of the Scottish Parliament elections, discussions took place between all sorts of people about the formation of a Government in Scotland. I am absolutely certain that the man who is currently the First Minister in Scotland took part in such discussions. If the hon. Gentleman wants to reveal which discussions took place with various other parties, I would be delighted to hear about them.
	As far as the powers of the Scottish Parliament are concerned, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, the settlement for that Parliament includes a degree of flexibility that has, over the years, allowed powers to be transferred to the Scottish Parliament and, on occasions, from it. The test that we will apply as to which powers go and which powers come will be what is in the best interest of the people of Scotland and the Union. If he wants to join me in those discussions, he is welcome to do so.

Jimmy Hood: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are going to discuss the powers of Westminster and the Scottish Parliament, one of the best places to do so is not in the media or commissions, but on the Floor of this House or within parliamentary structures? Would it not be a good idea, as I have suggested to my right hon. Friend in the past, for the Grand Committee to discuss all matters concerning Scotland— [ Interruption. ] My right hon. Friend will note that the Liberals and the SNP do not want to discuss Westminster issues in Scotland in this Parliament. I hope that my right hon. Friend agrees with me.

Des Browne: My hon. Friend has raised a point that he has been raising consistently for some time. He is to be commended for his consistent championing of that agenda, but it is a matter for the House rather than the Executive. However, he has made a good point. Those issues are alive, and they ought to be discussed in this Parliament and in the Scottish Parliament. The democratic deficit in Scotland is that, allegedly, a conversation is going on, although it is a pretty muted one, instigated by the Scottish Executive and paid for with public money, but without the authority of the Scottish Parliament. The democratic deficit in Scotland is that the SNP has been unwilling—dare I say it, afraid—to bring the national conversation to the Scottish Parliament to get it endorsed.

Alistair Carmichael: I thank the Secretary of State for his input so far into discussions leading to the setting up of the Scottish Constitutional Commission. He has always been very positive and engaged. However, he will need to explain to the Prime Minister that there is no appetite in Scotland for the transfer of powers between here and Edinburgh to be a two-way street. Unless that can be explained to the Prime Minister, the prospects for the commission's success will be diminished.

Des Browne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his recognition of my contribution. For my part, I reciprocate that and look forward to building the same sort of relationship with his successor. Our discussions have been constructive, because all the people at the heart of those discussions have the best interests of the Scottish people at heart and reflect the overwhelming view of the Scottish people that devolution must be made to work. Currently, we see a significant reduction in support for independence in Scotland, but that is no wonder, given that we have an Executive running Scotland who are more interested in powers that they do not have than in using those that they do for the people of Scotland. As for the point that the hon. Gentleman has made, I well understand his party's position, but the reality is that the transfer of powers under the 1998 Act has been a two-way street, and we should not deny it.

Sandra Osborne: I understand that the Secretary of State does not want to pre-empt the outcome of the commission, but does he agree that it is a matter of principle that where a Government have responsibility for spending money, they should also have responsibility for raising it and not just have tax-raising powers as an option?

Des Browne: It is interesting that the current Scottish Executive aspire to that position but are taking such powers away from local government in Scotland. There is no question but that financial accountability is an important part of democracy, and I am sure that the review consideration will come up with an answer to that.

David Mundell: I have heard what the Secretary of State has said about reviewing the Barnett formula, but is he really telling the House that no one on the Government Benches believes that such a review should take place? Specifically, will he confirm the position of the Justice Secretary on the Barnett formula, as he appears to be playing an increasingly shadowy role in Scottish devolution?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman knows what I have said at the Dispatch Box, but I cannot speak for everybody who sits on the Government Benches, any more than he can speak for everybody who sits on the Conservative Benches behind him. If he wants to know what each person believes, he should ask them. To describe the Secretary of State for Justice, who has responsibility for devolution in departmental terms, as a shadowy figure is a distortion of the truth. The fact of the matter is that no review of the Barnett formula is planned, and I understand from the Leader of the Opposition's comments yesterday that he does not plan one, either.

David Mundell: Perhaps the Secretary of State will explain to the House how it is tenable for Labour to agree to review the financial powers of the Scottish Parliament on the one hand, as he and the Prime Minister have done, but on the other hand to declare the Barnett formula to be sacrosanct.

Des Browne: It is as tenable for the Government to be in that position as it is for the Conservative party, and that is exactly the position that the Conservative party is in.

Armed Forces (Health Care)

Ann Winterton: When he next plans to discuss health care for members of the armed forces with the First Minister.

Des Browne: I have had various discussions with the First Minister on a range of subjects, including armed forces personnel. The Scottish Executive have the duty to ensure that NHS boards in Scotland implement their responsibilities to the armed forces, service families and veterans. The Ministry of Defence has numerous regular discussions at various levels to assist the Executive and NHS Scotland in that respect.

Ann Winterton: Although I acknowledge the excellence of the medical facilities for our military personnel at Selly Oak, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with the First Minister about providing an equally good range of facilities—a centre of excellence—for those serving who are based or living in Scotland, such as those in 52 Brigade, which is currently in Afghanistan? Most personnel will be based in Scotland, but there will be people from the north of England, too. Should they not receive equal treatment to that which people being looked after at Selly Oak receive?

Des Browne: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's recognition of the world-class clinical care that our troops receive at Selly Oak hospital. That has not always been recognised, but the Defence Committee has done the House, Selly Oak hospital and our troops a significant service by clearly confirming that a world-class service is provided there. The reason the service is world class is that there is a concentration of expertise at Selly Oak hospital that would be almost impossible to replicate anywhere else. I am aware of one occasion, for example, on which a soldier returning from Afghanistan required the attention of 16 trauma consultants. Only Selly Oak hospital can provide that. Any attempt to replicate that anywhere else in the United Kingdom would run the risk of diluting the care that we can give. Selly Oak should be built up.

David Hamilton: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the Defence Committee's report, which highlights the fact that veterans in Scotland do not receive the same treatment as veterans in the rest of the United Kingdom? The Select Committee was highly critical of that. When my right hon. Friend meets the First Minister of the minority Government in Scotland, will he make it clear that our troops deserve to be treated in exactly the same way in Scotland as they are throughout the rest of the UK?

Des Browne: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is a member of the Defence Committee, and to the work of the Committee. It has done a service to our armed forces by identifying that one criticism among a small number of criticisms in a report that was otherwise substantially complimentary about medical care. The Scottish Executive—in particular, the Health Minister in Scotland—have responded immediately to that matter. They have suggested that their dealings with the Ministry of Defence are very good on that issue, and I can confirm that they are. We will work together to deal with that and sort it out.

Mark Pritchard: Given that many veterans are now retired and elderly, does the Secretary of State agree with the report by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities that free health care for the elderly should now be subject to eligibility criteria?

Des Browne: I am not aware of the individual report that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but I will consider the matter in the context in which the report is written and get in touch with him.

Pete Wishart: If there have been any failings in the treatment of veterans in the past, the Secretary of State has only his Scottish colleagues in the previous Labour Executive to thank. Will he join me in congratulating the Scottish Government on putting an extra £500,000 into helping veterans with mental health issues, and on the priority treatment that veterans with service-related conditions are now about to receive from the Scottish Government? Does that not contrast vividly with the failings and shortcomings of the previous so-called Executive?

Des Browne: That is unworthy of the hon. Gentleman—

Alistair Carmichael: But not surprising.

Des Browne: Indeed. It is unworthy of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) to play party politics with the health and welfare of our troops, particularly those who are serving in Afghanistan or Iraq and who might come back injured. His party has responsibility for the delivery of that service. I have told the House that I am pleased with the response by the Health Minister in Scotland that she will engage with the issue now that it has been brought to her attention. The fact is, however, that it took her some months to find out that it was even an issue.

John Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the treatment of our veterans is of the utmost importance to Members on both sides of this House—except, it would appear, to Members from one party, which happens to be in a minority Government in Scotland? Does he agree that, if we were to open up the Scotland Act 1998, the important function of looking after our veterans might be one of the powers that we should bring back to this House, so that we can look after the people who defend this country?

Des Browne: There is growing consensus across the House that, in regard to the delivery of our public services, we ought, as a country, to recognise our commitment to our veterans and our serving troops, and to the families and extended families of those who serve our country in that way. It is disagreeable and disappointing that the Scottish National party should choose to make party advantage in that matter. However, I have no doubt that, as it learns more about the responsibilities of Administration, it will learn that that does not help, and that it will not be forgotten by the people of Scotland in the long term.

Ben Wallace: The recent Defence Committee report made it clear that the Scottish Executive were not giving high enough priority to the medical care of our service personnel. Last year, Scottish nationalist MSPs supported a ban on the Army visiting schools. Does the Secretary of State agree that the SNP's treatment of our soldiers as second-class citizens is simply the worst kind of politics? Will he seek an urgent meeting with the Secretary of State for Defence to ask him to raise that matter with the First Minister, in order to remind the First Minister that our armed forces personnel are part of the British Army, and that we stand together and fight together?

Des Browne: I will do what I can to get an early meeting with the Secretary of State for Defence, but I know that his diary is very busy. However, the hon. Gentleman has made the good point that one party in the House plays around with those issues for political purposes. In the absence of a coherent defence policy, it is not surprising that it chooses to exploit circumstances as it does. Members of that party should not continue to believe, however, that our armed forces do not recognise that. Those Members do not provide the coherent strategic support that our armed forces need, and they should not play about with those issues as they do.

Unemployment

Ann McKechin: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on Government support to assist unemployed people to return to work in Glasgow.

David Cairns: I have discussed the issue of Government support to assist unemployed people to return to work in Glasgow with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform on a number of recent occasions.

Ann McKechin: I welcome the good work of the Department for Work and Pensions in Glasgow and Glasgow city council in focusing on employment in the city. They have identified two main challenges, namely the lack of skills among low-paid workers and the lack of appropriate after-school care for lone parents. When my hon. Friend next meets the First Minister, will he remind him that Glasgow needs more, not fewer, apprentices and more funding for comprehensive after-school care rather than taking money out of the voluntary sector?

David Cairns: I agree with my hon. Friend that, after many years of decline, the city of Glasgow has undergone an astonishing renaissance in recent years. It is now important that economic opportunity is expanded out from the centre to all Glasgow's inhabitants. We will be able to do that only if we ensure that people have the right skills and training to be part of Glasgow's economic success. That will not happen by capping the number of available apprenticeships, which is what the SNP has done, in sharp contrast to the big expansion in apprenticeships that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced. We have ambitions for Glasgow, but it seems that the SNP does not.

Anne Begg: One way of getting more people into employment in Glasgow and elsewhere is through the Department for Work and Pensions' Workstep programme, which provides job subsidies to employers of people with severe disabilities. What would my hon. Friend say about a local authority that signed a Workstep contract with the DWP to supply work for 35 disabled people a week after SNP and Liberal Democrat councillors effectively voted to close the same factory in which those people work? How can that help people get into employment?

David Cairns: My hon. Friend is an acknowledged and nationally respected champion of disabled people, who has championed many programmes to help disabled people get into work not only in Glasgow, but in her own Aberdeen constituency. I am very concerned to hear about that proposed cut by Aberdeen city council, so I beg it not to take any action that would make it more difficult for disabled people to get into work, which would be entirely wrong.

Devolution

Nicholas Winterton: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister on the devolution settlement.

Des Browne: I have discussions with the First Minister on a range of issues and I look forward to further constructive discussions in the interests of the people of Scotland in the future.

Nicholas Winterton: I speak as a Conservative and Unionist Member. Will the Secretary of State explain why the Minister of State, who is sitting alongside him, has concluded:
	"There is no case for the massive restructuring"
	of the current fiscal arrangements for Scotland, when apparently the Labour leader in the Scottish Parliament believes that they should be fundamentally reviewed? May I have a straightforward answer?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman does not need to remind us of his qualifications to ask that question, as the whole House knows who he is. May I say that if I infer from his question correctly, he is a welcome convert to the improvement of the devolution settlement? This Government believe in devolution and we delivered it. I am delighted to be working with the Conservative Front Benchers both here and in the Scottish Parliament to devise a method for the review of the devolution settlement in order to improve it for the people of Scotland. I welcome his contribution.

Employment

Jim Devine: If he will make a statement on employment levels in Scotland.

David Cairns: The employment level in Scotland stands at 2.53 million, with the rate of employment at 76.5 per cent. In my hon. Friend's constituency, the employment rate stands at 78.4 per cent.

Jim Devine: Unemployment in my constituency stands at 2.4 per cent., but that figure will increase because of the cuts being implemented by the Scottish National party. Along with a 6 per cent. increase in rents, there are cuts in the Education Department, cuts in the Health Department and cuts in the Development Department, yet the SNP is spending £70,000 on a tent. Does my hon. Friend agree with me about that?

David Cairns: My hon. Friend is right. Since 1997 there have been more than 250,000 additional jobs in the Scottish economy thanks to Labour's management of the economy, and it is a great shame to see that good work being undone by the SNP, both in the Administration in Edinburgh and locally. I am sure that the voters of Livingston will bear that in mind the next time that they go to the polls.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Fabian Hamilton: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 5 March.

Gordon Brown: Before I list my engagements, let me say that I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in sending condolences to the family and friends of Royal Air Force Sergeant Duane Barwood, who died in Iraq on Friday. To him and to others who have lost their lives we owe a huge debt of gratitude.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Fabian Hamilton: I endorse the Prime Minister's comments.
	Poverty pay in this country was largely eradicated by the national minimum wage legislation introduced by this Government 10 years ago. Will my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents and the House that the minimum wage will continue to rise in line with average earnings, and that he will maintain his commitment to high employment and investment in our public services?

Gordon Brown: I am pleased to announce that the minimum wage will rise to £5.73 this October. That is a 60 per cent. increase on the original minimum wage introduced in 1999. Some people said that the minimum wage would cost us 2 million jobs. We have a rising minimum wage, and we have created 3 million jobs. I am also delighted to say that in contrast to what others are suggesting—£10 billion of tax cuts will be paid for by huge cuts in public spending—we will maintain public services in health, education and transport infrastructure, and those for children and pensioners. We will keep our promises on public services.

David Cameron: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Sergeant Duane Barwood, who was killed in Basra on Friday. His family live in my constituency, and our thoughts and prayers are with them as they honour his memory.
	Does the Prime Minister think that if he held a referendum on the Lisbon treaty he would win it?

Gordon Brown: No country in Europe apart from Ireland is holding a referendum on the constitutional treaty— Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should not be shouting down the Prime Minister, or the Leader of the Opposition.

Gordon Brown: If this were a constitutional treaty, we would hold a referendum. If there were a vote on the euro, we would hold a referendum. But the constitutional concept was abandoned, and that is why the nine countries that proposed a referendum—including Ireland—are not holding one.
	The question that the Opposition must answer is this. If after ratification they hold a referendum, they will essentially be renegotiating our membership of the European Union, and that would put thousands of jobs in this country at risk.

David Cameron: Everyone who is watching will see that the Prime Minister will not answer the question. The truth is that all of us in the House promised a referendum. We have the courage of our convictions and are sticking to that promise. The Prime Minister has lost his courage, and that lot—the Liberal Democrats—have lost their convictions. So let me ask the Prime Minister again: does he think that if he held a referendum, he would win it?

Gordon Brown: The last time a referendum was held on Europe, it was won with a massive majority. Let me also say to the right hon. Gentleman that his proposals put our membership of the European Union at risk. When will he wake up to the fact that three and a half million jobs are dependent on our membership of the European Union, that 700,000 companies are trading with Europe, that 60 per cent. of our trade is with Europe, and that all that is put at risk by Conservative intransigence on Europe?

David Cameron: And answer came there none.
	The Prime Minister says that the constitutional concept has been abandoned, yet this treaty includes provision for an EU Foreign Minister, an EU president and an EU diplomatic service. I do not think that Tony Blair is running for president of some feeble organisation. He is running for president of the United States of Europe.
	This treaty gets rid of dozens of vetoes, and gives the European Union, for the first time, the ability to get rid of further treaties without another treaty. If it looks like the constitution and sounds like the constitution, that is because it is the constitution. Tony Blair found the courage to back a referendum; why will not the Prime Minister?

Gordon Brown: The Conservative party is wrong: this is not "the United States of Europe". The Conservative party is wrong: foreign policy is decided at intergovernmental level. As far as what the right hon. Gentleman says about this institutional arrangement, a former Conservative Chancellor says:
	"What we have now is far less important than Maastricht"
	—and their party did not have a referendum on Maastricht.

David Cameron: If the Prime Minister wants to trade quotes, why does he not try this one from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who was Labour's appointment to the organisation that drew up the constitution? She said:
	"A referendum was promised. It should be delivered. If Labour can't trust the people, why should the people trust Labour?"
	Does not the Prime Minister understand that this is one of the reasons why our political system is so badly broken? All three main parties in this House made a promise to our constituents for a vote on the EU constitution. When we turn around and say, "You can't have it any more," it is no wonder people feel cheated and cynical because promises are being made and broken. Why cannot the Prime Minister see the damage that he is doing?

Gordon Brown: I have explained to the House that if this was a constitutional treaty, we would be having a referendum. The constitutional concept was abandoned. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to persist in talking about "the United States of Europe" and a "constitutional treaty", he will have no support in the rest of Europe. Indeed, the only party that supports him in Europe, the Czech ODS party, says:
	"The document is no constitution any more."
	If the right hon. Gentleman's party had truly changed and moved to the centre, he would be standing up to his Back-Benchers: he would be leading them instead of following them, he would be standing up to the Eurosceptics instead of appeasing them, and he would be moving to the centre of Europe instead of being left at the margins of Europe.

Hon. Members: More, more.

Anne Snelgrove: The opportunities for young people to receive a higher education are greater than ever before. Is Swindon, with its high employment level but low skills base, a suitable candidate to bid for a much needed new university?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many towns and cities in this country will want a university or higher education institution in the next few years. We are expanding higher and further education because we are investing more in education and not cutting it, and as we do so there will be scope for towns and cities in this country to apply to have universities or higher education institutions. That is the right way forward for Swindon and for many other towns and cities, and I hope that people will support the increase in education investment that makes that possible.

Nicholas Clegg: May I— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the right hon.— [Interruption.] Order. I call the right hon. Gentleman.

Nicholas Clegg: May I add my own expressions of sympathy and condolence to the family and friends of Sergeant Duane Barwood?
	The Prime Minister once said that he would,
	"build a wider pro-European movement in Britain".
	How does he think he can achieve that by colluding with the anti-European Conservatives to block the in out referendum that the British people really want?

Gordon Brown: By not walking out of the House of Commons, for a start. By not saying that there is a principle in abstention when it comes to a European issue. I tell the right hon. Gentleman that we will lead the agenda on the future of Europe, and that we will lead on the environment, international development, the approach to globalisation and security. There is not much principle in recommending abstention.

Nicholas Clegg: The Prime Minister talks about leadership, but the fact is that he has bottled it and, as far as I can make out, the leader of the Conservatives wants to leave the European Union but has not got the guts to say it. Is not the truth that this country will never lead in Europe until politicians who believe in the European Union have the courage to stand up for it, and politicians who want to leave it are flushed out in an honest debate on our membership?

Gordon Brown: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman entirely. The Conservative party leadership is being driven by the Eurosceptics on the Back Benches. I also agree with him that we need to put the pro-European case in the country, but I have to say that to go back to the 1970s and relive a referendum in the 1970s is not the way to plan for the future. The way to plan for the future is to have an agenda for a global Europe, which is exactly what this Government have.

Shona McIsaac: In a couple of weeks' time, free national bus travel is being introduced for pensioners. However, North East Lincolnshire council is chucking pensioners off the bus before 9.30 in the morning and blaming the Government. Will my right hon. Friend tell the residents of Grimsby and Cleethorpes that it is not the Government doing this, but a case of the Lib Dems stealing their bus passes?

Gordon Brown: I am proud that this Government have made it possible to have free local pensioner travel and now free off-peak national pensioner travel. That is why we have made available £650 million over the next three years. We consulted local authorities and we agreed to the scheme that they put forward. There is no excuse for local authorities denying pensioners their right to travel throughout the country. This is a scheme that is right, that can be done and that should happen from next month.

David Cameron: There are currently six police investigations under way into the conduct of government in London. The most recent allegations are that the London Mayor's director for equalities and policing has been channelling public funds into organisations run by friends and cronies. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that that is completely unacceptable?

Gordon Brown: As on any occasion when a matter referring to a police investigation is raised, I have to say this is a matter for the police. It should be fully investigated, but it is not a matter for this House until the police complete their investigations.

David Cameron: The point is that while these accusations are going on and this investigation is under way, the Mayor—the Labour Mayor—has said that he
	"trusts Lee Jasper with his life",
	and last night he said that he is already planning to reappoint him. Does not every element of the Prime Minister's moral compass tell him that this is wrong?

Gordon Brown: As I understand it, the person whom the right hon. Gentleman is talking about has resigned and is no longer in that employment. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to support the police in their investigation, why does his candidate for the Mayor of London say that the first target for cuts is transport and policing? That is the Conservative party—cutting transport and cutting policing.

Edward O'Hara: Has my right hon. Friend seen reports in today's press of condemnation by the United Nations drug control agency of a celebrity cocaine culture in the United Kingdom? I have seen the devastating effect of drugs on young lives in my constituency, so will he take this opportunity to agree with me that, quite simply, there is nothing glamorous about drug abuse?

Gordon Brown: One of the good things of recent years is that the number of people using drugs appears to have fallen. It is also true that the number of people receiving drug treatment is up, and we have doubled the budget available for people receiving treatment for drugs. But I have to agree with my hon. Friend that it is very important, when there are celebrities and role models for young people, that they send out the proper messages. Some of our role models and celebrities send out the right message about the damage of drugs, but I hope that those people who take a casual attitude to drugs will think again and remember the message, as celebrities, that they are sending out to young people in our country.

John Hayes: The Prime Minister, speaking of education, boasts of opportunity for all, but has he forgotten that under his stewardship, the number of young people not in education, employment or training has soared to 1.25 million? Does he believe that the principal reason for that failure is that nine in 10 jobs go to foreign workers, or is it that 40,000 school leavers leave at 16 functionally illiterate and/or innumerate?

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that about 500,000 more young people are in education after school than when we came into power in 1997, so far from there being fewer young people in education, there are more. He has also forgotten that more young people are in work now than there were in 1997, and that youth unemployment has fallen by 80 per cent. Yes, there is an issue to address about young people who fall through the net and young people who leave school without qualifications, but the only way to deal with it is through the measures that we are taking to raise to the age of 18 the opportunities for young people and not to cut them, as the Conservative party would do.

David Marshall: In view of soaring energy costs for consumers and soaring profits for energy companies, will my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to imposing a windfall levy on those profits with a view to increasing the winter fuel allowance for pensioners by £200 for next winter?

Gordon Brown: As my hon. Friend knows, the head of Ofgem has set up an inquiry into the market in electricity and energy in this country. It is right that he pursues an investigation to see whether competition is working effectively in the industry. It is also true that as a result of the European emissions trading scheme windfall profits have been made by the energy companies. That is a matter on which the head of Ofgem has also commented. The energy companies have made additional money available this year to help people on low incomes pay their fuel bills, but that is a small amount in relation to what the Government are doing through the winter allowance. Our winter allowance is £200 for the over-60s and £300 for the over-80s. This winter, when people are experiencing high utility bills, the winter allowance that we are giving is crucial.

Edward Garnier: Since last November, the Government have secretly trebled the bribe offered to foreign national prisoners to go home. Have the Government done that in secret because they have failed?

Gordon Brown: Two years ago, only 1,500 foreign national prisoners were leaving and being thrown out of this country. Last year, as a result of the actions that we have taken, the figure more than doubled to 4,200. I think it is right that we get as many foreign national prisoners in British prisons back to their country of origin as quickly as possible. I would have hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman would support the measures that we are taking to return people to their country of origin.

Chris McCafferty: Question 5, Mr. Speaker.

Gordon Brown: rose—

Hon. Members: Answer.  [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will remember some hon. Members when they make a mistake.

Chris McCafferty: In the week when we are celebrating both mother's day and international women's day, would my right hon. Friend commit to helping improve maternal and child health programmes in developing countries through improvements in reproductive health services and, in particular, through the international health partnership?

Gordon Brown: There would be no better way to mark international women's day than by taking action to deal with infant and maternal mortality. I would have thought that both sides of the House would think it a tragedy that 500,000 mothers die unnecessarily each year in childbirth and that in a country such as Sierra Leone one in every seven mothers dies in childbirth, bringing into life a baby while dying herself. That is why it is very important that the international health partnership that we have formed takes action to deal with maternal mortality. It needs more nurses, more midwives and more help with treatment in those countries. I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because she has put this issue on the agenda in this country. If the Opposition would get serious about issues relating to maternal mortality, perhaps together, as a House, we would take action on this matter.

Gregory Campbell: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), and First Minister of Northern Ireland, on the announcement that he made yesterday that he plans to stand down from his position as Northern Ireland's First Minister? Will he also join me in congratulating my right hon. Friend on almost 40 years in this House and on his resolve and determination not to give in to terrorism? Will he also join my right hon. Friend, my colleagues and me in reassuring all of those who want to see continuity in Northern Ireland that true democrats will have nothing to fear from the next Democratic Unionist party First Minister in the Assembly?

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman is right: all of us want to pay tribute to the work that the First Minister did in making possible the final stages of the peace process, the work that he has done as First Minister, his resolute determination to stand up to terrorism at every point and his decision to work with other parties for reconciliation in Northern Ireland. I had the privilege of phoning him last night to thank him for the work that he has done as First Minister, and I hope that the whole House will join me in acknowledging his 40 years of service in this House and the historic role that he has played in the peace settlement in Northern Ireland.

Phyllis Starkey: In Milton Keynes, the Open university, De Montfort university, the university of Luton, University College Northampton and Milton Keynes college are already collaborating, through Universities for Milton Keynes, to provide higher education course for 700 students locally. Would my right hon. Friend agree that that is just the type of initiative that the new university challenge has been designed for, and that Milton Keynes will be successful in its bid for one of the 20 new universities?

Gordon Brown: The Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills made an important announcement on Monday about the designation of 20 towns or cities for new universities or higher education institutes. I hope that all cities and towns will consider whether they could add to their higher education and university amenities, and I hope that many will make submissions as part of that process. Milton Keynes has done a historic job as the home of the Open university, which is known throughout the world, and given Milton Keynes' size, its application for university status will be welcomed in every part of the country.

Peter Bottomley: To return to the European treaty, what polling or survey evidence did the Prime Minister have on what the result of a referendum would have been?

Gordon Brown: The one poll that people look at is an actual referendum. In 1975 there was a referendum that recorded a yes vote, with more than two thirds of the population voting yes. I remind Conservative Members that most of those who were here in 1992 walked through the Lobby to oppose a referendum on Maastricht, and now they want a referendum on a treaty that is far less significant. They should think again about their position.

Julie Morgan: I know that my right hon. Friend wants to engage and involve young people in their communities as volunteers and in the democratic process. Does he agree that lowering the voting age to 16 would help to bring that about?

Gordon Brown: In the White Paper on the constitution, the Government said that we would consider lowering the voting age to 16 and that is now part of the debate that will take place in the country. On Friday, we announced the appointment of Jonathan Tonge as chair of the Youth Citizenship Commission, which will consider a range of issues including not only the voting age, but the curriculum on citizenship and whether there is a case for a citizenship ceremony when people come of age. All those issues should be part of a public debate.

Ann Winterton: Is it not ironic that while our armed forces are fighting so courageously and losing lives to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan, this House through the Lisbon treaty is handing powers to our masters in Brussels, thereby further destroying the democratic right of the British people to bring about change through the ballot box?

Gordon Brown: We have a Parliament, we have a democracy and we are having debates on that very treaty in this House as part of our democracy. The hon. Lady should be honest with the House, because she was a member of the campaign— [ Interruption. ] I hope that Conservatives who are putting the case for the referendum will tell the House what they really want. They want a no vote in the referendum and many of them want to renegotiate our membership of the EU. They are not simply anti the amending treaty; they are anti-Europe.

Ministerial Visits

David Taylor: When he next plans to visit north-west Leicestershire.

Gordon Brown: I visited Leicestershire in September, when I visited policing in the community. I look forward to returning to the area soon.

David Taylor: When he comes to north-west Leicestershire, the Prime Minister will receive a warm welcome, not least from the area's general practitioners, who have implemented our Government's primary care policies very successfully since 1997. Will he meet those GPs, such as the highly respected Dr. Orest Mulka, whose experience with polyclinics abroad indicates that they will be a step too far and that they might lead to a lower regard for generalist doctors, damage the GP- patient relationship and be wasteful and demoralising as a consequence?

Gordon Brown: The key priority is that we have more doctors who are serving their communities, not just during working hours but during evenings and weekends. That is why it is right that in every area of the country we are investing more in the GP service. I hope that our GPs will vote for the three extra hours that will allow half the practices in this country to offer weekend opening or evening opening so that doctors are available for people when they need them.

Engagements

Mark Hunter: Is the Prime Minister aware that St. Ann's hospice in Heald Green in my constituency needs to raise £16,000 a day just to keep going? Is he further aware that the respected charity Help the Hospices claims that Government fund only one third of the total requirement needed? Will the Prime Minister tell us what he will do about the problem and will he agree to meet an all-party delegation to discuss the matter in more detail?

Gordon Brown: Of course, I would be very happy to meet an all-party delegation. The work of hospices and the great contribution that they make should be commended in every part of the country. It is true to say that we are providing more finance for hospices than ever before. We will continue to look at what we can do and to value the service that is given by volunteers, as well as professionals, in this area. When we meet, we will discuss the future funding needs of hospices.

Geraldine Smith: Does the Prime Minister agree, and I think that he will, that holding a referendum on the EU treaty would be tantamount to Parliament's abrogating its responsibilities? However, does he accept that many people in Britain regard the EU as a bureaucratic monolithic monstrosity that unduly interferes with the economic, social and political issues facing our nation? What will he do to alter that perception?

Gordon Brown: I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend's second point. We are proposing major changes in the EU so that it is more outward looking, more global in its orientation, more flexible and less bureaucratic. On her first point, let us be absolutely clear that on every other amending treaty for the EU, the decision has been made by this House and not through a referendum. The Single European Act, Nice, Amsterdam and Maastricht were all decided on in this House. It is the Conservative party that has changed its mind, not the Labour party.

Steve Webb: With the prison population at record levels, Prison Service managers are understandably trying to use every available place that they can find. For Members of this House with open prisons in their constituencies, there is a concern that security vetting is being relaxed because there are spare places in open prisons. Will the Prime Minister ensure that there is an investigation and will he guarantee that security vetting will not be relaxed simply because of pressure on prison places?

Gordon Brown: I understand that security vetting does take place. The important thing for the hon. Gentleman to recognise is that we have created 20,000 more prison places over the past 10 years. Even this year there will be a rise in prison places from 82,000 to 85,000 and we will create 15,000 more prison places in the years to come. The reason that we are doing that is that we have brought more offences to justice. Five years ago, 1 million offences were brought to justice; now the figure is 1.4 million. That is a tribute to good policing in this country, and it is because we have been prepared to invest in the police services through our public expenditure.

Martin Caton: Over the past few years, cluster munitions have killed and maimed tens of thousands of innocent civilians. Now the Oslo process, involving more than 130 nations, including the UK, offers us a way of ridding the world of those weapons for ever. Can my right hon. Friend commit to showing the same sort of resolve in dealing with cluster munitions that this Government showed when we rid the world of land mines?

Gordon Brown: I can tell my hon. Friend that weapons that cause unacceptable harm are something that we have got to negotiate about. We are engaged in a negotiation on this, and of course the Defence Secretary will report back to the House when that negotiation is completed.

Fireworks Act 2003 (Amendment)

Rob Marris: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the noise emitted by fireworks supplied in the United Kingdom.
	Fireworks used in the United Kingdom are too often too noisy. We need a lower limit on their noise, and improved labelling of fireworks to go along with it. I thank the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, of which I am a long-time member, for its assistance with background information to the Bill. I pay tribute to my former colleague Bill Tynan for the work that he did to bring in the Fireworks Act 2003, which has benefited millions of people and millions of pets in the United Kingdom.
	Under the 2003 Act, there is a ban on those aged under 18 buying fireworks. It introduced a curfew on the use of fireworks between 11 pm and 7 am, except on four major festivals: Diwali, Guy Fawkes night on 5 November, new year's eve and Chinese new year. Regulations made under the Act in 2004 introduced a limit of 120 dB for fireworks.
	Fireworks fall into four categories. Category 1 fireworks are suitable for use inside domestic buildings; category 2 fireworks are suitable for outdoor use in relatively confined areas; category 3 fireworks are suitable for outdoor use in large open spaces, and category 4 fireworks are incomplete or not intended for sale to the general public. Most fireworks with which the Bill is concerned, and which concern our constituents, fit into category 3.
	The 2003 Act also introduced criminal sanctions for contravention of fireworks regulations—an offence punishable on summary conviction by up to six months' imprisonment or a fine up to level 5, which is currently £5,000. Unfortunately, a recent poll suggested that 60 per cent. of people in this country think that the Act and the regulations made under it are not effective.
	Like many Members, I love fireworks—I love the visuals of fireworks. I am not against fireworks or against their use in domestic situations, but I am against the antisocial use of fireworks, which is generally connected to their noise.
	Over the years, I have received lots of letters about fireworks, but I have never received a letter about the visual pollution of fireworks, although I appreciate the fact that certain nights of the year may be difficult for astronomers. However, what my constituents write to me about is the noise of fireworks, and I suspect other Members receive similar letters from their constituents.
	As I said, the current limit is 120 dB. To give the House some idea of what that sounds like, it would be like being 120 m from a passenger jet. A road drill is 100 dB, and 95 dB is roughly equivalent to a book being dropped 1 m on to a table. At a lower level, 70 dB is the normal sound one would hear on a television and, depending on traffic volume, between 70 and 80 dB is the background traffic noise that many of us experience.
	We continue to receive letters from constituents understandably complaining about the noise of fireworks, even though most fireworks sold and used in the United Kingdom are below the current 120 dB limit. However, they still disturb humans and pets, so the Bill would lower the threshold from 120 to 95 dB in the interests of improving the lives of all of us—human beings and pets. There would also be safety implications.
	Secondly, the Bill would improve the labelling of fireworks. Three and a half years ago, I tabled early-day motion 1549:
	"That this House believes that, in the interests of helping to promote good neighbourliness and animal welfare, regulations should soon be made under the Fireworks Act 2003 requiring all those selling fireworks to label them clearly specifying the decibel level produced by each firework when used."
	I want informed choice for consumers. I am sure that many people who buy fireworks have no intention of disturbing their neighbours. However, unless we have clear labelling on the noise level to be emitted by fireworks it is difficult for people to know until they use them whether they will in fact disturb their neighbours or animals in the neighbourhood. We should lower the level allowed for fireworks used in the United Kingdom from 120 dB—the current limit—to 95 dB, and we should make sure that fireworks supplied for use in the UK have a clear label specifying the decibel level to be emitted by the firework.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Rob Marris.

Fireworks Act 2003 (amendment)

Rob Marris accordingly presented a Bill to make provision about the noise emitted by fireworks supplied in the United Kingdom: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 October, and to be printed [Bill 83].

Orders of the Day

European Union (Amendment) Bill
	 — 
	[11th Allotted Day]

(Remaining Proceedings on Clause 8 and proceedings on New Clauses and New Schedules)
	 Further considered in Committee.
	[Sir Alan Haselhurst  in the Chair]

Alan Haselhurst: Before I call the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) to move his amendment, may I say to the Committee that we will have a single debate on the amendments that have been selected? It is not usual for hon. Members to write in to signify a wish to speak in Committee, but a good number of colleagues have indicated such a wish to me, so I suspect that this will be a well-subscribed debate. As time limits cannot be imposed by the occupant of the Chair, I would appreciate it if right hon. and hon. Members took account of the fact that there is heavy demand today.

Clause 8
	 — 
	Commencement

William Hague: I beg to move amendment No. 293, page 4, leave out line 8 and insert—
	'(2A) Section [ Referendum] comes into force on Royal Assent.
	(2B) The other provisions of this Act come into force if an affirmative answer has been given to the question asked in a referendum held in accordance with section [ Referendum] and any legal challenge made under an order made under that section has been disposed of by the court or courts in question.'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 296, page 4, leave out line 8 and insert—
	'(2A) Section [ Referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon (No. 2)] and Schedule [ Conduct of the Referendum (No. 2)] come into force on Royal Assent.
	(2B) The other provisions of this Act come into force if an affirmative answer has been given to the question specified in section [ Referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon (No. 2)] in a referendum held in accordance with that section and Schedule [ Conduct of the Referendum (No. 2)] and any legal challenge made under that Schedule has been disposed of by the court or courts in question.'.
	Amendment No. 297, page 4, leave out line 8 and insert—
	'(2A) Section [ Referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon (No. 3)] and Schedule [ Conduct of the Referendum No. 2] come into force on Royal Assent.
	(2B) The other provisions of this Act come into force if an affirmative answer has been given to the question asked in a referendum held in accordance with section [ Referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon (No. 3)] and Schedule [ Conduct of the Referendum (No. 2)] and any legal challenge made under that Schedule has been disposed of by the court or courts in question.'.
	Amendment No. 63, on page 4, line 8, leave out 'on Royal Assent' and add
	'only if an affirmative answer has been given to a referendum held in accordance with Schedules ( Referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon) and ( Conduct of the Referendum) (which shall have effect) and any legal challenge made under paragraph 3 of Schedule ( Referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon) has been disposed of by the court or courts in question'.
	New clause 1— Referendum—
	'(1) A referendum shall be held throughout the United Kingdom and Gibraltar on the day specified by an order made by a Minister of the Crown.
	(2) The question to be asked in the referendum is—
	"Should the United Kingdom approve the Lisbon Treaty?"
	(3) A Minister of the Crown may by order make provision in relation to the referendum which—
	(a) determines the referendum period for the purposes of Part 7 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c. 41); and
	(b) requires ballot papers to be used by voters in Wales, after having set out the question and the possible answers in English, to set them out again, with equal prominence, in Welsh.
	(c) makes provision as to the conduct of the referendum, entitlement to vote in the referendum and legal challenge to the referendum result.
	(4) The question in Welsh is—
	"A ddylai'r Deyrnas Gyfunol gymeradwyo Cyfundeb Lisbon?"
	(5) Every power of a Minister of the Crown to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
	(6) An order under this section may be made only if a draft of the order has been—
	(a) laid before Parliament; and
	(b) approved by a resolution of each House.
	(7) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument bring the provisions of this Act into force provided that a majority of votes in the referendum shall have been cast in favour of approving the Lisbon Treaty.'.
	New clause 18— Referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon (No. 2)—
	'(1) A Referendum shall be held, not later than six months after Royal Assent, throughout the United Kingdom and Gibraltar on the day specified by an order made by a Minister of the Crown.
	(2) This question shall be asked in the referendum—
	"Should the United Kingdom approve the Lisbon Treaty?"
	(3) A Minister of the Crown may by order vary the wording of this question, or add a supplementary question.
	(4) An order under this section may be made only if a draft of the order has been—
	(a) laid before Parliament; and
	(b) approved by a resolution of each House.
	(5) The referendum shall be conducted in accordance with Schedule [ Conduct of the Referendum (No. 2)].'.
	New clause 19— Referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon (No. 3)—
	'(1) A Referendum shall be held, not later than six months after Royal Assent, throughout the United Kingdom and Gibraltar on the day specified by an order made by a Minister of the Crown.
	(2) This question shall be asked in the referendum—
	"Should the United Kingdom approve the Lisbon Treaty?"
	(3) The referendum shall be conducted in accordance with Schedule [ Conduct of the referendum (No. 2)].'.
	New schedule 1— Referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon—
	 'Holding a referendum
	1 (1) A referendum shall be held, not later than six months after Royal Assent, throughout the United Kingdom and Gibraltar on the day specified by an order made by a Minister of the Crown.
	(2) The question to be asked in the referendum is—
	"Should the United Kingdom approve the Treaty of Lisbon?"
	(3) A Minister of the Crown may by order make provision in relation to the referendum which—
	(a) determines the referendum period for the purposes of Part 7 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c.41); and
	(b) requires ballot papers to be used by voters in Wales, after having set out the question and the possible answers in English, to set them out again, with prominence, in Welsh.
	(4) The question in Welsh is—
	"A ddylai'r Deyrnas Gyfunol gymeradwyo Cyfundeb Lisbon?"
	(5) Every power of a Minister of the Crown to make an order under this paragraph shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
	(6) An order under this section may be made only if a draft of the order has been—
	(a) laid before Parliament; and
	(b) approved by a resolution of each House.
	 Entitlement to vote in the referendum
	2 (1) Subject to subparagraph (2), a person is entitled to vote in the referendum, if on the day it is held, he has—
	(a) an individual who would be entitled to vote as an elector at a parliamentary election in a constituency in the United Kingdom;
	(b) a peer who would be entitled to vote as an elector at a local government election in an electoral area in Great Britain or at a local election in an electoral area in Northern Ireland;
	(c) a peer who, by virtue of section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1985 (c.50) (peers resident outside the United Kingdom), would be entitled to vote as an elector at a European Parliamentary election in an electoral region; or
	(d) a Commonwealth citizen who would be entitled to vote in Gibraltar as an elector at a European Parliamentary election in the combined electoral region in which Gibraltar is comprised.
	(2) A Minister of the Crown may by order made by statutory instrument make provision for the purposes of subparagraph (1) for disregarding alterations made after a specified date in a register of electors.
	(3) An order under subparagraph (2) may—
	(a) apply or incorporate, with or without modification, any provision of any enactment or subordinate legislation relating to elections;
	(b) make different provision for different cases;
	(c) make provision subject to such exemptions and exceptions as the Minister making the order thinks fit; and
	(d) make such incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as that Minister thinks fit.
	(4) An order under subparagraph (2) may be made only if a draft of the order has been—
	(a) laid before Parliament; and
	(b) approved by a resolution of each House.
	(5) In subparagraph (1)—
	"electoral area" means—
	(a) an electoral division or ward (or, in the case of a parish or community in which there are no wards, the parish or community) for which an election of councillors is held in England and Wales under the Local Government Act 1972 (c.70);(b) an electoral ward for which an election of councillors is held in Scotland under the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 (c.39); or(c) an area for which an election of members of a district council is held in Northern Ireland under section 11 of the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962 (c.14);
	"electoral region" means an electoral region mentioned in section 1(2) of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 (c.24);
	"European Parliamentary election" means an election of a representative to the European Parliament.
	 Legal challenge to the referendum result
	3 (1) No court may entertain any proceedings for questioning the number of ballot papers counted or votes cast in the referendum, as certified—
	(a) by the Chief Counting Officer, or
	(b) by counting officer,
	unless the proceedings are brought in accordance with this section.
	(2) The proceedings may be brought—
	(a) in England and Wales, only by a claim for judicial review;
	(b) in Scotland, only by a petition for judicial review;
	(c) in Northern Ireland, only by an application for judicial review;
	(d) in Gibraltar, only by a claim for judicial review.
	(3) The court in England and Wales or Gibraltar must not give permission for a claim unless the claim form is filed before the end of the permitted period.
	(4) The court in Scotland must refuse a petition unless it is lodged before the end of the permitted period.
	(5) The court in Northern Ireland must refuse an application for leave to apply for judicial review unless it is lodged before the end of the permitted period.
	(6) In this paragraph "the permitted period" means the period of six weeks starting with—
	(a) the date on which the Chief Counting Officer or (as the case may be) the counting officer gives a certificate as to the number of ballot papers counted and votes cast in the referendum; or
	(b) if he gives more than one such certificate, the date of the last to be given.'.
	New schedule 2— Conduct of the Referendum—
	 'Introductory
	1 (1) In this Schedule "the 2000 Act" means the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c. 41).
	(2) Expressions used in this Schedule and in Part 7 of the 2000 Act have the same meanings in this Schedule as in that Part.
	 Encouraging voting
	2 The Electoral Commission may do anything they think necessary or expedient for the purpose of encouraging voting at the referendum.
	3 (1) For the purpose of encouraging voting at the referendum the Electoral Commission may, in particular, direct each counting officer to provide such impartial information as may be specified in the direction to every person who is entitled, in the referendum, to vote in the counting officer's voting area.
	(2) A direction under this paragraph may also include requirements as to the form and manner in which the information is to be sent.
	(3) A direction under this paragraph may not require the inclusion of additional information in a document or part of a document the form of which is prescribed by or under any enactment.
	(4) In subparagraph (1) "voting area", in relation to a counting officer, means—
	(a) in the case of a counting officer appointed for a relevant area in Great Britain, that area;
	(b) in the case of the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland in his capacity as a counting officer, Northern Ireland; and
	(c) in the case of a counting officer for Gibraltar, Gibraltar.
	 Provision of information to voters
	4 (1) This paragraph applies if the Electoral Commission have not, before the appropriate day, designated an organisation under section 108 of the 2000 Act (organisations to whom assistance is available under section 110 of that Act) in relation to each possible outcome of the referendum.
	(2) The Electoral Commission shall take steps to provide such impartial information for persons entitled to vote in the referendum as will promote a proper and fair understanding and awareness among those persons about the arguments for each answer to the referendum question.
	(3) The Electoral Commission shall ensure that expenditure in money or money's worth in any form by those persons responsible for promoting the arguments for each answer to the referendum question is as far as possible of equal value and shall require those persons to produce audited accounts to ensure compliance with this paragraph within the permitted period for proceedings under paragraph 3 of Schedule ( Referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon).
	(4) No public expenditure nor any expenditure in money or money's worth from the European Union or its institutions shall be provided or spent in pursuance of the referendum campaign.
	(5) In this paragraph "the appropriate day" means—
	(a) the day specified for the purposes of this paragraph in an order under subsection (6) of section 109 of the 2000 Act;
	(b) if no such order is made and one or more applications under that section are made in relation to each possible outcome of the referendum before the 29th day of the referendum period, the 43rd day of the referendum period; and
	(c) in any other case in which no such order is made, the 29th day of the referendum period.
	(6) Information provided in pursuance of this paragraph must be provided by whatever means the Electoral Commission think is most likely to secure (in the most cost-effective way) that the information comes to the notice of everyone entitled to vote in the referendum.
	(7) The Electoral Commission shall publish rules and guidelines for and shall monitor compliance by the broadcasting authorities regulated in the United Kingdom by Charter or statute as providers of programme services in relation to the referendum so as to ensure that the provision of those services complies with the same impartiality as is required of the Electoral Commission itself under paragraph 4(2).
	 Combination of polls
	5 (1) A Minister of the Crown may by order make provision for, or in connection with, the combination of polls at the referendum with those at an election or at another referendum, or both.
	(2) An order under this paragraph may include provision creating criminal offences.
	 Payment of the charges and expenses of relevant officers by the Electoral Commission
	6 (1) A Minister of the Crown may by order make provision for the payment by the Electoral Commission of any of the following—
	(a) the charges in respect of services properly rendered, or expenses properly incurred, in connection with the referendum by a relevant officer; and
	(b) the sum equal to any increase in the superannuation contributions required to be paid by a local authority in respect of a person in consequence of a fee paid as part of those charges.
	(2) The order may include provision as to—
	(a) the services and expenses, or descriptions of services and expenses, in respect of which payment may be made;
	(b) the maximum amount to be paid or reimbursed in respect of such services and expenses, or descriptions of services and expenses;
	(c) payments in advance; and
	(d) accounts to be submitted.
	(3) Before making an order under this paragraph, the Minister in question must consult the Electoral Commission.
	(4) The consent of the Treasury is required for the making of an order under this paragraph.
	(5) In this paragraph "relevant officer" means—
	(a) a counting officer; or
	(b) a person appointed by the Chief Counting Officer or a counting officer to discharge all or any of his functions.
	 Accounts relating to expenditure under paragraph 6
	7 (1) As soon as reasonably practicable after the holding of the referendum the accounting officer of the Electoral Commission and—
	(a) prepare and sign an account of the payments made by the Commission in accordance with an order under paragraph 6; and
	(b) submit a copy of the account, as signed, to the Comptroller and Auditor General.
	(2) The account must be in such form as the Treasury direct and must set out—
	(a) the aggregate amount of charges and expenses falling within subparagraph 6(1)(a) in respect of which those payments have been made; and
	(b) the aggregate amount of sums falling within paragraph 6(1)(b) in respect of which they have been made.
	(3) The Comptroller and Auditor General must—
	(a) examine and certify the account submitted to him under this paragraph; and
	(b) lay a copy of the account, as certified, and of his report on it before each House of Parliament.
	 Gibraltar
	8 (1) A Minister of the Crown may by order make such provision as he considers appropriate for the purposes of, or in connection with, one or both of the following—
	(a) the holding of the referendum in Gibraltar; and
	(b) the regulation there of the conduct of the referendum.
	(2) The provision that may be included in an order under this paragraph includes, in particular—
	(a) provision about any matter as respects which the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c. 41) makes provision for the United Kingdom in connection with referendums;
	(b) provision for applying any provision made under section 7(2) of this Act to Gibraltar with modifications;
	(c) provision about donations to political parties and others who campaign, or are proposing to campaign, for one or other of the possible outcomes to the referendum;
	(d) provision imposing obligations in relation to the referendum on the providers of programme services;
	(e) provision conferring functions in relation to the referendum on any public authority in Gibraltar that is responsible for regulating those providers;
	(f) provision conferring jurisdiction on courts in Gibraltar that are specified in the order or which are determined in the manner so specified;
	(g) provisions conferring jurisdiction in relation to matters arising in Gibraltar on courts in the United Kingdom;
	(h) provision for expenses incurred by specified persons in accordance with the order to be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund.
	(3) Before making an order under this paragraph the Minister in question must consult both—
	(a) the Government of Gibraltar; and
	(b) the Electoral Commission.
	(4) An order under this paragraph may—
	(a) provide for conduct to constitute a criminal offence under the law of Gibraltar;
	(b) extend and apply to Gibraltar, with or without modification, the provisions of any enactment or subordinate legislation relating to any matter mentioned in subparagraph (2);
	(c) modify any such enactment or subordinate legislation (including any imposing criminal liability) so far as it has effect in relation to any part of the United Kingdom;
	(d) modify or apply or incorporate, with or without modification, the provisions of any legislation in force in Gibraltar relating to elections or referendums or to any such matter.
	(5) The capacity of the Gibraltar legislature to make law in relation to any matter in relation to which provision may be made under this paragraph is not affected by the existence of the power conferred by this paragraph.
	(6) But subparagraph (5) is not to be construed as restricting the operation in relation to a law made by the Gibraltar legislature of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 (c. 63) (under which colonial laws are void if repugnant to provision made under an Act of Parliament).
	 Supplementary provision
	9 This Act does not affect the power of the Secretary of State to make provision under section 129 of the 2000 Act (orders regulating the conduct of referendums) for or in connection with the referendum.
	10 Section 126 of the 2000 Act (identification of promoter and publisher of referendum materials) does not apply to any material published for the purposes of the referendum if the publication is required under or by virtue of an order under section 129 of that Act.
	 Orders under this Schedule
	11 (1) Every power to make an order under this Schedule shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
	(2) An order under paragraph 5 or 8 may be made only if a draft of the order has been—
	(a) laid before Parliament; and
	(b) approved by a resolution of each House.
	(3) An order under this Schedule may—
	(a) apply or incorporate, with or without modification, the provision of an enactment or subordinate legislation relating to donations, elections or referendums;
	(b) make different provision for different cases, including different provision for different parts of the United Kingdom and different provision for Gibraltar;
	(c) make provision subject to such exemptions and exceptions as the Minister making the order thinks fit; and
	(d) make such incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as that Minister thinks fit.
	 Interpretation of Schedule
	12 (1) In this Schedule—
	"donation" means anything which is or corresponds to a donation within the meaning of Part 4 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c. 41); and
	"programme services" means any services which would be programme services within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42) if Gibraltar were part of the United Kingdom.'.
	New schedule 3— Conduct of the Referendum (No. 2)—
	 Introductory
	13 (1) In this Schedule "the 2000 Act" means the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c. 41).
	(2) Expressions used in this Schedule and in Part 7 of the 2000 Act have the same meanings in this Schedule as in that Part.
	 Referendum period
	14 A Minister of the Crown may by order make provision which determines the referendum period for the purposes of Part 7 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c. 41).
	 Wales
	15 A Minister of the Crown may by order make provision which—
	(a) requires ballot papers to be used by voters in Wales, after having set out the question and the possible answers in English, to set them out again, with prominence, in Welsh; and
	(b) determines the question in Welsh.
	 Entitlement to vote in the referendum
	16 (1) Subject to subsection (2), a person is entitled to vote in the referendum if, on the day it is held, he is—
	(a) an individual who would be entitled to vote as an elector at a parliamentary election in a constituency in the United Kingdom;
	(b) a peer who would be entitled to vote as an elector at a local government election in an electoral area in Great Britain or at a local election in an electoral area in Northern Ireland; or
	(c) a Commonwealth citizen who would be entitled to vote in Gibraltar as an elector at a European Parliamentary election.
	(2) A Minister of the Crown may by order made by statutory instrument make provision for the purposes of subsection (1) for disregarding alterations made after a specified date in a register of electors.
	(3) An order under subsection (2) may—
	(a) apply or incorporate, with or without modification, any provision of any enactment or subordinate legislation relating to elections;
	(b) make different provision for different cases;
	(c) make provision subject to such exemptions and exceptions as the Minister making the order thinks fit; and
	(d) make such incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as that Minister thinks fit.
	(4) An Order under subsection (2) may be made only if a draft of the order has been—
	(a) laid before Parliament; and
	(b) approved by a resolution of each House.
	(5) In subsection (1)(b) "electoral area" means—
	(a) an electoral division or ward (or, in the case of a parish or community in which there are no wards, the parish or community) for which an election of councillors is held in England and Wales under the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70);
	(b) an electoral ward for which an election of councillors is held in Scotland under the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 (c. 39); or
	(c) an area for which an election of members of a district council is held in Northern Ireland under section 11 of the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962 (c. 14).
	 Encouraging voting
	17 The Electoral Commission may do anything they think necessary or expedient for the purpose of encouraging voting at the referendum.
	18 (1) For the purpose of encouraging voting at the referendum the Electoral Commission may, in particular, direct each counting officer to provide such information as may be specified in the direction to every person who is entitled, in the referendum, to vote in the counting officer's voting area.
	(2) A direction under this paragraph may also include requirements as to the form and manner in which the information is to be sent.
	(3) A direction under this paragraph may not require the inclusion of additional information in a document or part of a document the form of which is prescribed by or under any enactment.
	(4) In subparagraph (1) "voting area", in relation to a counting officer, means—
	(a) in the case of a counting officer appointed for a relevant area in Great Britain, that area;
	(b) in the case of the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland in his capacity as a counting officer, Northern Ireland; and
	(c) in the case of a counting officer for Gibraltar, Gibraltar.
	 Provision of information to voters
	19 (1) This paragraph applies if the Electoral Commission have not, before the appropriate day, designated an organisation under section 108 of the 2000 Act (organisations to whom assistance is available under section 110 of that Act) in relation to each possible outcome of the referendum.
	(2) The Electoral Commission may take such steps as they think appropriate to provide such information for persons entitled to vote in the referendum as the Commission think is likely to promote awareness among those persons about the arguments for each answer to the referendum question.
	(3) In this paragraph "the appropriate day" means—
	(a) the day specified for the purposes of this paragraph in an order under subsection (6) of section 109 of the 2000 Act;
	(b) if no such order is made and one or more applications under that section are made in relation to each possible outcome of the referendum before the 29th day of the referendum period, the 43rd day of the referendum period; and
	(c) in any other case in which no such order is made, the 29th day of the referendum period.
	(4) Information provided in pursuance of this paragraph must be provided by whatever means the Electoral Commission think is most likely to secure (in the most cost-effective way) that the information comes to the notice of everyone entitled to vote in the referendum.
	 Combination of polls
	20 (1) A Minister of the Crown may by order make provision for, or in connection with, the combination of polls at the referendum with those at another referendum.
	(2) An order under this paragraph may include provision creating criminal offences.
	 Payment of the charges and expenses of relevant officers by the Electoral Commission
	21 (1) A Minister of the Crown may by order make provision for the payment by the Electoral Commission of any of the following—
	(a) the charges in respect of services properly rendered, or expenses properly incurred, in connection with the referendum by a relevant officer; and
	(b) the sum equal to any increase in the superannuation contributions required to be paid by a local authority in respect of a person in consequences of a fee paid as part of those charges.
	(2) The order may include provision as to—
	(a) the services and expenses, or descriptions of services and expenses, in respect of which payment may be made;
	(b) the maximum amount to be paid or reimbursed in respect of such services and expenses, or descriptions of services and expenses;
	(c) payments in advance; and
	(d) accounts to be submitted.
	(3) Before making an order under this paragraph, the Minister in question must consult the Electoral Commission.
	(4) The consent of the Treasury is required for the making of an order under this paragraph.
	(5) In this paragraph "relevant officer" means—
	(a) a counting officer; or
	(b) a person appointed by the Chief Counting Officer or a counting officer to discharge all or any of his functions.
	 Accounts relating to expenditure under paragraph 6
	22 (1) As soon as reasonably practicable after the holding of the referendum the accounting officer of the Electoral Commission must—
	(a) prepare and sign an account of the payments made by the Commission in accordance with an order under paragraph 6; and
	(b) submit a copy of the account, as signed, to the Comptroller and Auditor General.
	(2) The account must be in such form as the Treasury direct and must set out—
	(a) the aggregate amount of charges and expenses falling within subparagraph 6(1)(a) in respect of which those payments have been made; and
	(b) the aggregate amount of sums falling within paragraph 6(1)(b) in respect of which they have been made.
	(3) The Comptroller and Auditor General must—
	(a) examine and certify the account submitted to him under this paragraph; and
	(b) lay a copy of the account, as certified, and of his report on it before each House of Parliament.
	 Gibraltar
	23 (1) A Minister of the Crown may by order make such provision as he considers appropriate for the purposes of, or in connection with, one or both of the following
	(a) the holding of the referendum in Gibraltar; and
	(b) the regulation there of the conduct of the referendum.
	(2) The provision that may be included in an order under this paragraph includes, in particular—
	(a) provision about any matter as respects which the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c.41) makes provision for the United Kingdom in connection with referendums;
	(b) provision for applying any provision made under section 7(2) to Gibraltar with modifications;
	(c) provisions about donations to political parties and others who campaign, or are proposing to campaign, for one or other of the possible outcomes to the referendum;
	(d) provision imposing obligations in relation to the referendum on the providers of programme services;
	(e) provision conferring functions in relation to the referendum on any public authority in Gibraltar that is responsible for regulating those providers;
	(f) provision conferring jurisdiction on courts in Gibraltar that are specified in the order or which are determined in the manner so specified;
	(g) provision conferring jurisdiction in relation to matters arising in Gibraltar on courts in the United Kingdom;
	(h) provision for expenses incurred by specified persons in accordance with the order to be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund.
	(3) Before making an order under this paragraph the Minister in question must consult both—
	(a) the Government of Gibraltar; and
	(b) the Electoral Commission.
	(4) An order under this paragraph may—
	(a) provide for conduct to constitute a criminal offence under the law of Gibraltar;
	(b) extend and apply to Gibraltar, with or without modification, the provisions of any enactment or subordinate legislation relating to any matter mentioned in sub-paragraph (2);
	(c) modify any such enactment or subordinate legislation (including any imposing criminal liability) so far as it has effect in relation to any part of the United Kingdom;
	(d) modify or apply or incorporate, with or without modification, the provisions of any legislation in force in Gibraltar relating to elections or referendums or to any such matter.
	(5) The capacity of the Gibraltar legislature to make law in relation to any matter in relation to which provision may be made under this paragraph is not affected by the existence of the power conferred by this paragraph.
	(6) But sub-paragraph (5) is not to be construed as restricting the operation in relation to a law made by the Gibraltar legislature of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 (c.63) (under which colonial laws are void if repugnant to provisions made under an Act of Parliament).
	 Legal challenge to the referendum result
	12 (1) No court may entertain any proceedings for questioning the number of ballot papers counted or votes cast in the referendum, as certified—
	(a) by the Chief Counting Officer, or
	(b) by a counting officer,
	unless the proceedings are brought in accordance with this section.
	(2) The proceedings may be brought—
	(a) in England and Wales, only by a claim for judicial review;
	(b) in Scotland, only by a petition for judicial review;
	(c) in Northern Ireland, only by an application for judicial review; or
	(d) in Gibraltar, only by a claim for judicial review.
	(3) The court in England and Wales or Gibraltar must not give permission for a claim unless the claim form is filed before the end of the permitted period.
	(4) The court in Scotland must refuse a petition unless it is lodged before the end of the permitted period.
	(5) The court in Northern Ireland must refuse an application for leave to apply for judicial review unless it is lodged before the end of the permitted period.
	(6) In this section "the permitted period" means the period of six weeks starting with—
	(a) the date on which the Chief Counting Officer (or as the case may be) the counting officer gives a certificate as to the number of ballot papers counted and votes case in the referendum; or
	(b) if he gives more than one such certificate, the date of the last to be given.
	 Supplementary provision
	13 This Act does not affect the power of the Secretary of State to make provision under section 129 of the 2000 Act (orders regulating the conduct of referendums) for or in connection with the referendum.
	14 Section 126 of the 2000 Act (identification of promoter and publisher of referendum materials) does not apply to any material published for the purposes of the referendum if the publication is required under or by virtue of an order under section 129 of that Act.
	 Orders under this Schedule
	15 (1) Every power to make an order under this Schedule shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
	(2) An order under paragraph 5 or 8 may be made only if a draft of the order has been—
	(a) laid before Parliament; and
	(b) approved by a resolution of each House.
	(3) An order under this Schedule may—
	(a) apply or incorporate, with or without modification, the provision of an enactment or subordinate legislation relating to donations, elections or referendums;
	(b) make different provision for different cases, including different provision for different parts of the United Kingdom and different provision for Gibraltar;
	(c) make provision subject to such exemptions and exceptions as the Minister making the order thinks fit; and
	(d) make such incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as that Minister thinks fit.
	 Interpretation of Schedule
	16 (1) In this Schedule—
	"donation" means anything which is or corresponds to a donation within the meaning of Part 4 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c. 41); and "programme services" means any services which would be programme services within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42) if Gibraltar were part of the United Kingdom.'.

William Hague: Amendment No. 293 is linked with new clause 1, and its effect is very simple: it would mean that the Act would come into force, and the Lisbon treaty would be ratified by the United Kingdom, only once there had been a referendum of the British people, in line with the manifesto commitments of every party in the House.
	The Committee will understand that the arguments in favour of a referendum are many and varied. They include the arguments that the issues being decided are of great importance to the governance of Britain, that the constitutional nature of what is being proposed is transparently obvious, and that referendums have become a regular part of our constitutional practice in Britain in recent years, on matters ranging from directly elected mayors to the establishment of a Scottish Parliament. However, there is one argument that all of us in the House would do well to reflect on in the coming hours as we debate the issue of a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. It is an argument that goes to the heart of trust in politics and faith in political institutions. Put simply, it is this: a referendum should be held on the issue because a referendum was promised—by the Government, by the Opposition and, yes, by the Liberal Democrat party.

Alan Beith: While we are talking about trust, on the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's considerable historical knowledge of the Conservative party, can he tell me of any occasion when the Conservative party has held a referendum on any treaty that it has negotiated—or indeed on anything else at all? Ought we not to measure the Conservative party's attitude by how it behaves in power, rather than how it behaves in opposition?

William Hague: Parties should be judged on whether they keep the promises that they make. The only occasion on which the Conservative party has promised a referendum, other than on the possible introduction of the euro under the Maastricht treaty, was in the 2005 general election, and we are keeping that promise by voting for the amendment today. It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman's party will not keep its promise by voting for the amendment.

Christopher Huhne: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there have been substantial changes, particularly as regards justice and home affairs, for which the opt-in and opt-out arrangements are far more extensive than they were under the proposed constitution? That was a matter of particular sensitivity for him and his colleagues. Circumstances have changed, and as that great Liberal, Lord Keynes, said,
	"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman says that there are substantial differences between the constitution and the treaty before us, but last night on the BBC's "Newsnight", a commentator said, "There are differences but they are differences of nuance." He also said: "I think you have to go through some pretty perverse constitutional contortions to be able to go back and explain to the electorate why that promise for a referendum doesn't hold." That commentator was one Mark Littlewood, head of media for the Liberal Democrats until last year. That is the accurate position. Clearly, it is not only the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party who can run into calamities from time to time.
	The promise was made specifically about the European constitution, and given the overwhelming similarity between the constitution and the reform treaty, all attempts to wriggle out of that commitment will only be seen, and will only be, the weasel words with which a solemn promise is deliberately and calculatingly broken.

Elliot Morley: The right hon. Gentleman speaks of opting out of measures as a nuance, but it is much more than a nuance. Also, does he not think it significant that countries such as Denmark, Holland and France, which voted against the constitution, are not having a referendum on the treaty, because they do not see it as the same?

William Hague: "Nuance" was not my word. It is the word of a former head of media for the Liberal Democrats. I will present my own analysis of the changes or similarities between the treaty and the constitution in a moment.
	Since when has it been an argument that a Government in this country are absolved of keeping their election commitments because a Government in another country are not doing a similar thing? We cannot say that the election manifestos of parties in the House are invalidated because a referendum is not held in another country.

Nigel Evans: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

William Hague: I shall give way once more, then I must make a little progress.

Nigel Evans: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Surely one of the fundamental changes, other than the promise made in 2005 by all the parties, is that the ratchet clauses in the treaty mean that there could be fundamental changes in the future, on which Members of Parliament would have no say whatever?

William Hague: Of course that adds to the case for a referendum. It is an issue that we debated in Committee last night, and I am pleased to say that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and I, and Members of other parties, made common cause in saying that the use of such ratchet clauses should be subject to primary legislation, rather than the simple motion to which the Government have so far committed themselves.
	Let us remind ourselves of the categoric nature of the promises made. The Conservative manifesto was clear. The Labour party manifesto stated:
	"We will put it"—
	that is, the European constitution—
	"to the British people in a referendum and campaign wholeheartedly for a 'Yes' vote".
	The then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, elaborated, as he often did, to  The Sun. He said:
	"We don't know what is going to happen in France, but we will have a referendum on the constitution in any event, and that is a government promise"—
	I repeat—"in any event". Asked what it was that made the European treaty constitutional in nature, the then Foreign Secretary, now the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, said at the Dispatch Box on 6 June 2005 that it was the creation of an EU president and an EU Foreign Minister. He said:
	"Those points are central to the European constitutional treaty, and of course I see no prospect of their being brought into force, save through the vehicle of a constitutional treaty."—[ Official Report, 6 June 2005; Vol. 434, c. 1001.]
	Even the most casual voter, looking to see whether the promises made at election time are fulfilled, would recognise that that combination of statements does not allow for the abandonment of the referendum when a redrafted treaty still contains the essence of its constitutional nature, as defined by the current Lord Chancellor himself.

Christopher Huhne: rose—

Matthew Taylor: rose—

William Hague: I hope that hon. Gentlemen will wait a moment. I am coming to the Liberal Democrats' manifesto of 2005, then I will gladly give way. That stated:
	"We are therefore clear in our support for the constitution, which we believe is in Britain's interest—but ratification must be subject to a referendum of the British people."
	A few months later, at their party conference in Blackpool, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) proposed a conference motion that stated:
	"Any proposals which involve significant change in the relationship between the Union, the Member States and its citizens should be approved in Britain through a referendum".
	That is of interest to the Committee, because it went further even than the manifesto commitment. Not only, in the view of the then future leader of the Liberal Democrats, should the constitution be submitted to a referendum, but any proposals involving significant change in the relationship between the EU and its member states, he said, should be submitted to a referendum.
	That is an interesting view. Difficult as it is to argue that the Lisbon treaty is fundamentally different from the EU constitution, relying, as the argument does, on the exaggeration of the significance of a small number of changes, when one considers the sheer sweep of the treaty's provisions—the creation of a president and Foreign Minister, or high representative, the abolition of so many vetoes, the provision, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) pointed out, for the abolition of even more to come, the total collapsing of the third pillar of the EU, the widened scope of the European Court of Justice and the increased powers of the European Parliament—an argument that the treaty is not even a significant change in the relationship of the EU to the member states can only be an exercise in intellectual nonsense and political deception. And that is what it is.

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, because he avoided answering my previous intervention on justice and home affairs, which he and his colleagues always regarded as the most sensitive of the subjects that we are considering. Does he now accept, and will he put it on record, that the reform treaty is substantially different from the constitution in that every single aspect of justice and home affairs is subject to an opt-out or an opt-in? That is a fundamental change, which he should acknowledge.

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that there are some differences on justice and home affairs, which I will tackle shortly, between the constitution and the Lisbon treaty. However, there is an important point, which the European Scrutiny Committee has studied at length, to make. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), who has spoken so often in our proceedings, pointed out that the red lines—the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) was considering the red lines on justice and home affairs—leak like a sieve. That is why I am not satisfied with the changes.

Several hon. Members: rose —

William Hague: Let me finish my point about the Liberal Democrats before I take a further intervention.
	The leader of the Liberal Democrats should be true to his original conviction. When he wrote in  The Guardian on 15 October 2003, as a Member of the European Parliament, he attacked the Government for
	"dismissing all calls for a referendum"
	and
	"playing straight into the hands of the Eurosceptics."
	He said:
	"Nothing will do more damage to the pro-European movement than giving room to the suspicion that we have something to hide, that we do not have the 'cojones' to carry our argument to the people."
	An explanation of why the Liberal Democrat leadership's protests in the debates have become ever more shrill is that, at some point in recent months, they have become separated from their cojones. Those unfortunate objects are now to be found impaled on a distant fence.
	The argument that the Lisbon treaty is not only different from the European constitution, but so different that entire political parties are relieved of their commitment to hold a referendum does not stand up to much analytical scrutiny.

Angus Robertson: The right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that every party in the House committed itself to a referendum, not least the Scottish National party, which committed itself first, and will vote for a referendum this evening. However, is not it right and proper to remember the public in the debate? Opinion poll after opinion poll shows that the overwhelming majority of supporters of the Labour party, the Conservative party, the SNP and even the Liberal Democrats want a referendum on the issue. It is no surprise that cynicism arises in the country about democratic decisions when we ride roughshod over our promises and public opinion on this matter.

William Hague: Absolutely. That is well said. People in 10 parliamentary constituencies have had the opportunity, organised by the Electoral Reform Society, to cast a vote. It is noticeable that one of the highest turnouts and one of the largest majorities in favour of a referendum on the treaty was in the constituency of the hon. Member for Eastleigh. The margin for a referendum was vastly greater than his majority at the general election. He should reflect on that.

John Redwood: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful case. Did he notice two other things about that interesting referendum? First, the number of votes in favour of a referendum was greater than the number of votes that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) got—

Chris Bryant: The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) just said that.

John Redwood: No; my right hon. Friend said "greater than his majority". The number of votes for the referendum was actually greater than the number that elected the hon. Member for Eastleigh on the promise to hold a referendum. Secondly, the hon. Member for Eastleigh failed in his campaign to stop people in his constituency voting on that crucial issue. Was that not an anti-democratic disgrace?

William Hague: It was a shame to discourage people from voting. My right hon. Friend has picked me up on an important point. The number of votes cast and the majority may be similar in the Rhondda, but not in the rest of the country. My right hon. Friend has made an important distinction—matters are even worse for the hon. Member for Eastleigh than I imagined, because the number of votes cast in a referendum was greater than his support in the constituency.

Matthew Taylor: rose—

Christopher Huhne: rose—

Malcolm Bruce: rose—

William Hague: I am spoiled for choice. Let us bring in the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor).

Matthew Taylor: Given the right hon. Gentleman's passionate commitment on the subject and his concerns about the treaty, which I do not doubt, will he clarify what will happen if, as is likely, the treaty goes through? If the treaty were in place and the Conservatives were in government, what exactly would they put to the British people in a referendum to enable them to vote on the concerns that the right hon. Gentleman has expressed?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman asks me to look a long way into the future. It is perfectly understandable that hon. Members in other parties are ever more inquisitive about a Conservative Government, since that moment draws steadily nearer.  [Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary says that I always give that answer to that question, but it is the same question, so it receives the same answer. That consistency will apply under a Conservative Government.
	The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell asks me to concede the argument before it is over, but the issue is not yet decided. When it is decided in this place, it will go to another place, when it will not be too late for those parties that committed themselves to a referendum in their election manifestos to insist that it happens. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should recommend that course to his colleagues.

Geraldine Smith: The right hon. Gentleman's party has claimed throughout the debates that there has not been enough time to discuss all the detail, and many amendments have been tabled, yet the right hon. Gentleman expects the British people to vote a straight yes or no, which is nonsense. One cannot vote on a treaty that is 30 or 40 pages long; one can vote only on a principle.

William Hague: If the people of Ireland can have a referendum, the people of Britain have every ability to hold one. We suggest not a Committee stage throughout the country, but that once the Bill has passed through Parliament, and before it receives Royal Assent, there should be a referendum so that people can give their verdict. The voters of France and of Holland had a referendum, and the people of Britain should have the referendum that they were promised.

Geraldine Smith: The right hon. Gentleman says that the people of France and of the Netherlands had a chance to vote in a referendum, yet he says that the treaty is the same as the constitution. If so, what did their vote achieve?

William Hague: It certainly did not lead to their withdrawal from the European Union—some people claim that voting on the treaty is the same as withdrawal. The hon. Lady might well ask what the votes achieved. The European leaders went away and tweaked and tinkered with the constitution and brought it back under a different name, which brings me to a point that I wanted to make.
	The treaty was designed to seem different. In the words of Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, who wrote the original document:
	"All the earlier proposals will be in the new text , but will be hidden and disguised in some way."

Kim Howells: That is the French.

William Hague: The Minister says that that is the French, but here come the Belgians. The then Belgian Foreign Minister put it honestly when he said:
	"The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable: the aim of this Treaty is to be unreadable...The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this Treaty had to be unclear. It is a success."
	I give full marks to Giuliano Amato, the former Italian Interior Minister, who said last year that it was
	"decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception...Because if this is the kind of document that the IGC will produce, any Prime Minister—imagine the UK Prime Minister—can go to the Commons and say, 'look...it's absolutely unreadable, it's the typical Brussels treaty, nothing new, no need for a referendum.' Should you succeed in understanding it at first sight there might be some reason for a referendum, because it would mean that there is something new."
	At least that was a disarmingly honest admission of what was going on. Hardly anybody has been fooled—except, unfortunately, some of the party leaders in the House of Commons. In spite of the deliberate attempt to baffle the people of this and other countries, which should in itself redouble the determination of the people's elected representatives to secure a referendum, it is not beyond the wit of interested human beings to come up with a comparative analysis of the constitution and the Lisbon treaty.

Malcolm Bruce: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

William Hague: I must complete this point, but I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in due course.
	A comparative analysis is, however, beyond the capabilities of the Foreign Office, it seems. Throughout last autumn, the initial answers to the written questions that I had tabled to the Foreign Secretary asking for a comparative, clause-by-clause analysis were simply delaying replies, as Ministers worked out how to avoid publishing something so deeply inconvenient to their argument. In the end, the Foreign Secretary just refused to do so, relying on the discredited mantra that the constitutional concept had been abandoned, which was not conducive to open debate. From a Government who are supposedly committed to freedom of information and transparency, that should not be acceptable to Parliament.
	As a result, it has been left to others to perform the comparative analysis with intellectual rigour and honesty. The European Scrutiny Committee has published a table showing that the overwhelming majority of the constitution's provisions are replicated in the Lisbon treaty. We always say that we will try not to get the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, who is reading at the moment, into too much trouble, but the Minister for Europe has told us that the hon. Gentleman is in so much trouble as it is that that does not matter any more. The hon. Gentleman said that
	"every provision of the constitutional treaty, apart from the flags, mottos and anthems, is to be found in the reform treaty. We think that they are fundamentally the same, and the Government have not produced a table to contradict our position."—[ Official Report, 11 December 2007; Vol. 469, c. 211.]
	Another analysis showed that of the 250 main provisions in the constitution, 240 are replicated in the Lisbon treaty. Every cross-party analysis of the treaty has reached the same conclusion. The Foreign Affairs Committee concluded that
	"there is no material difference between the provisions on foreign affairs in the Constitutional Treaty which the Government made subject to approval in a referendum and those in the Lisbon Treaty on which a referendum is being denied."

Mike Gapes: rose—

William Hague: I must give way to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mike Gapes: Will the right hon. Gentleman also remind the House that my Committee decided in two specific votes—by nine votes to three and by eight votes to four—to reject moves for a referendum on this treaty?

William Hague: It is well known that that was what the Committee decided on a referendum; I am discussing whether the Lisbon treaty and the constitution are the same. The hon. Gentleman's Committee and the report, with which he presumably agreed, said that, on foreign affairs, the treaty and the constitution are exactly the same.

Malcolm Bruce: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

William Hague: I shall, because I promised I would.

Malcolm Bruce: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that a constitution that would have swept away every treaty from the treaty of Rome to the treaty of Nice, and incorporated them in a single document capable of being determined on a yes or no vote, is quite different from a set of rules that are bound to incorporate changes, if they are going to advance the workings of the European Union? That is the fundamental difference. If the right hon. Gentleman is successful tonight in the Lobby, secures a referendum and campaigns for a no vote, how will he explain and interpret what the British people want the Government to do next?

William Hague: The right hon. Gentleman thinks that there is a fundamental difference between the documents, but my argument is that there is no fundamental difference between them. Let me complete the answer to that, and I shall come to his second point in due course.
	Faced with that onslaught of evidence and analysis from independent commentators and Committees of this House, the promise breakers have made their last stand on one forlorn but intriguing argument—the "mouse" argument, originally introduced, I think, by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton.  [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will explain later who originally came up with it. That argument concedes that the Lisbon treaty is indeed 90 per cent., or thereabouts, the same as the constitution, "But," it goes on, with an air of triumph inappropriate to the facts available, "a mouse is 90 per cent. genetically the same as a human being, and it is the 10 per cent. difference that really counts."
	The difference between a man and a mouse is indeed a fascinating question, and if Liberal Democrat Front Benchers vote for a referendum tonight, the performance of their leader might be part of the analysis of that difference. Even if we bend over backwards to accommodate that view, however, by no stretch of the imagination do the changes made between the two documents turn the man-like constitution into the mouse-like treaty of Lisbon.
	Compared with the constitution, the Lisbon treaty contains some improvements, such as the explicit ruling out of European Court of Justice competence in foreign policy and the six words on climate change, which we debated last week. They are nice to have, but they make no material difference to the policies, powers or procedures of the EU. The changes between the constitution and the Lisbon treaty also take one important step backwards—the removal of the commitment to undistorted competition within the EU from the overriding objectives of the European treaties—but the vast majority of the rest is the same.

Mike Gapes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

William Hague: I know that we are in Committee, and I am trying to give way as much as I can, but I must be allowed to make an argument.
	Why have the debates in this House on this treaty over the past six weeks been in essence the same as the public debate that raged about the European constitution? We would not be arguing about the same things if the two documents were fundamentally different. The Government are fond of alleging that the Conservative party is alone in its view of European affairs—they always omit to mention that they opposed vast tracts of the treaty to which they have now signed up—but on the issue of whether the constitution and the treaty are the same, it is the Government who are alone in Europe.

Edward Davey: rose—

William Hague: I give way to the author of the "mouse" argument.

Hon. Members: Squeak, squeak!

Edward Davey: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is as usual making an amusing speech. However, will he deal with the substance for a change? Will he give a proper answer about the difference between the provisions of the constitutional treaty and the Lisbon treaty on justice and home affairs, which are among the most significant changes proposed by the constitutional treaty? Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that there are now major opt-ins that make a complete difference to how the Lisbon treaty affects the United Kingdom? Will he agree with that on the record?

William Hague: We had that discussion just 10 minutes ago. Of course there are changes between the Lisbon treaty and the constitution, and I have just listed some others. However, they do not equate to the difference between a man and a mouse, which is the argument here.
	The Spanish Prime Minister has said:
	"We have not let a single substantial point of the constitutional treaty go."
	The Finnish Europe Minister has said:
	"There's nothing from the original institutional package that has been changed."
	The German Chancellor has said:
	"The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact."

Gordon Banks: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

William Hague: I must proceed for another few minutes.
	The Government cannot argue that the treaty is different and that the referendum is unnecessary because they have met their four red lines, which relates to the point that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton has just made. One of the red lines was that the treaty should have no impact on tax policy. The fact that the impact on tax is the same in the treaty as it was in the constitution is clear—there is no impact at all. It was only ever a red herring that Tony Blair invented when he was before the Liaison Committee.
	The second red line is that there should be no loss of independence in foreign policy—that can be debated in respect of either document—but other than the renaming of the foreign minister as the high representative, almost nothing has changed between the two documents.
	A third red line—claimed by Tony Blair at the Dispatch Box in front of me at the end of June in his last days in office—was a clear opt-out from the charter of fundamental rights, but the Minister for Europe has since told us:
	"The fact is that the United Kingdom has neither sought nor achieved an opt-out on the charter of fundamental rights, which will apply in every member state of the European Union."—[ Official Report, 28 January 2008; Vol. 471, c. 34.]
	That is a total reversal of what the former Prime Minister said, and he is no longer here to explain that to the House of Commons.
	The final red line was the opt-in on justice and home affairs. The value of that has been debated, and the European Scrutiny Committee has cast doubts on parts of it. The Government claim to have met their red lines, although few objective analysts agree with them, but when they promised a referendum they made exactly the same claim about their red lines.
	So, what has really changed between Tony Blair standing at the Dispatch Box and saying
	"let the battle be joined."—[ Official Report, 20 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 157.]
	about a referendum in April 2004, and the current Prime Minister saying, "Let battle be avoided at any cost, and please don't let me be photographed at the signing ceremony"? Only two things have changed: the general election of 2005 was got out of the way, and the Government decided that a referendum could not be held because they did not think that they would win it. The Prime Minister who did not have the bottle to call a general election he had prepared for is the same Prime Minister who does not have the courage or honour to hold a referendum that he has promised.
	As a result, this treaty is devoid of any democratic mandate or legitimacy, which is a rarity in the history of European treaties. The authority of the Wilson Government in the '60s to pursue entry negotiations into the then European Economic Community derived from a clear commitment in their election manifesto. The mandate of the Conservative Government elected in 1970 to complete those entry negotiations was based on an explicit manifesto commitment. The Labour Government elected in 1974 said that they would hold a referendum, and they did. The Conservative manifesto in 1992 included the intention to ratify the treaty of Maastricht. However, nowhere did the Labour manifesto of 2005 say that if the constitution were defeated elsewhere in Europe, it would be brought back with a few tweaks or that a commitment to a British referendum would be abandoned.
	The opportunity to call a general election last autumn, with the ratification of the treaty proposed in the Government's manifesto, was not taken up. Given that the treaty brings about major changes in the way in which Britain is governed, the Government have nowhere—neither in a general election nor in a referendum—requested or received the authority and consent of the people. The absence of such authority damages the democratic legitimacy of the European Union in the eyes of the electorate. The unwillingness of those who favour a treaty of this kind to submit their views to the electorate contributes neither to democracy nor to the quality of argument.
	In a speech last month to the Centre for European Reform, the Foreign Secretary was reported to have said that once the new EU treaty had been ratified, pro-Europeans in Britain, as he termed them, would have no more excuses in trying to combat public hostility to the EU. The implication is that, once the treaty is ratified without the voters' consent, Ministers must start working on the voters in order to encourage them to favour such things. What is wrong with trying to persuade the voters of the merits of the case before ratification, rather than afterwards? What does it say about the convictions of politicians when they reserve their arguments for following quietly in the wake of decisions, rather than arguing boldly for them in advance? It tells us that their calculations are more important than their convictions. As one commentator wrote yesterday in  The Independent:
	"This treaty strategy is Gordon Brown's personal creation, this is his specified treatment of Parliament, and visible to all is his definition of politics as cynicism in action."

Rob Marris: I think that the United Kingdom negotiated a good deal. Indeed, many in France would say that the rejection of the constitutional treaty in a referendum has led to a worse deal for France on the Lisbon treaty. If the right hon. Gentleman had his way, and there were a referendum and it were lost, what evidence does he have that the UK could renegotiate a better treaty for itself? In that case, would he wish to return to the status quo ante, with, as he believes, the EU functioning not very well?

William Hague: Of course, there are many arguments, which are probably beyond the scope of the amendment—they are certainly beyond the time available for my speech—about what could be achieved in different situations and through different negotiations. We could go into all the arguments about what would have happened if the Government had actually taken a lead in the past two years, rather than sitting immobile and allowing this to be done to them—declaring the constitution dead two years ago. They could have negotiated many things more successfully. The argument that we cannot possibly ever say no for fear of what would happen afterwards is a strange argument in a democracy. This House must be able to come to a judgment, and the country should be able to come to a judgment, when it has been promised the opportunity to do so. The Government's refusal to call a referendum—

Edward Davey: rose—

Don Foster: rose—

William Hague: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), then I shall try to conclude.

Don Foster: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. On the answer he just gave, he has been asked about that matter three times already. One of the great merits of an in/out referendum is that there is total clarity about the implications, whatever result is obtained. There is a total lack of clarity about the referendum he proposes. Just once, would he answer this fundamental question: what would be the implications of a "no" result in the referendum he seeks?

William Hague: If the Liberal Democrat party is so concerned about the implications of a "no" result in a referendum on the treaty, it should not have included a commitment to such a referendum in its election manifesto. The hon. Gentleman makes the point that an in-out referendum would give a clear view. On the question of in or out, it would give a clear view, but it would tell us nothing about what people think about the Lisbon treaty. Many people—including me—are strongly in favour of remaining in the European Union but against the Lisbon treaty.
	This group of amendments includes an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson), which would enable a referendum on the Lisbon treaty and give the Government an order-making power to add another question. Although we prefer amendment No. 293, which proposes a straightforward referendum on the treaty, our second preference would be to support the amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West. I would have thought that the Liberal Democrats would want to support it, too, because it would allow a vote on the Lisbon treaty and on another question, which is what they want.

David Howarth: The amendment that stands in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson) allows the Government to change the question, which presumably includes changing it to include support for the treaty. Is that what the right hon. Gentleman really supports?

William Hague: If the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West were passed, we could be sure that there would be a referendum, and the terms of the question would then be open to further debate and discussion. It would be wrong to rule out the hon. Gentleman's amendment simply on drafting grounds.

Edward Davey: rose—

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman must make his own speech, but I shall let him intervene one more time.

Edward Davey: On the question of what would happen if there were a referendum and the country voted no, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the British Conservative party has no friends in Europe. All the other 26 conservative parties oppose it. How would he negotiate in the British national interest, when every conservative party in the European Union opposes him?

William Hague: The logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that no nation is allowed to vote no, that even the power of veto does not really count and that no nation can stand up against the orthodoxy of the times. I say that that is not democratic, and it is not right. Indeed, it was not an argument accepted by the Liberal Democrats when they wrote their election manifesto.

Philip Davies: My right hon. Friend is again making an excellent speech. Does he agree that the crux of the matter is that thousands of my constituents have filled in forms demanding a referendum, and that they feel cheated? Either the Government and the Liberal Democrats think that my constituents are too thick to make a decision on the treaty, or they know that they would lose a vote on it. Which of those two things does my right hon. Friend think it is, or does he think it is both?

William Hague: It might be both. There is a patronising attitude along the lines of, "Although this is important, it is so detailed that you out in the country needn't worry your little heads about it", but I suspect that the more powerful argument that has prevailed on the Government is that they do not think that they would win such a referendum, which does us no favours.

Adrian Bailey: rose—

William Hague: In fairness to the Committee, I must try to conclude my remarks, because I want to put one further argument.
	In addition to my earlier points, of equal concern to all of us who believe in thriving democratic parliamentary government is the position taken by those who promised a referendum and now wish to deny one, which damages the reputation and standing of our politics. In our role as constituency Members of Parliament, most of us in the House—I suspect that this applies to all parties—visit sixth forms and local colleges, and speak about the work of Parliament and why elections matter and votes count. We encourage young people to exercise their civic responsibilities. In many cases we send them birthday cards on their 18th birthday saying, "You now have the right to take part in decisions about your country's future."

Adrian Bailey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

William Hague: No, I am explaining my argument.
	It is central to people's faith in participation, which we so strongly encourage, that Members of Parliament, once elected, do their best to be true to the broad direction and principal promises that they have made to voters. On occasion, when Members of Parliament cannot do so, there should be a compelling reason that the country as a whole can understand and, at least in part, accept.
	No such argument prevails in this case. If the Committee votes down the amendments calling for a referendum, we will have to go to our schools and colleges and say that there are times when almost the entire House of Commons can be elected on a specific pledge, and yet a majority in the House can then decide to renege on it, not because it is unaffordable, not because there is an emergency and not because the voters no longer want that pledge, but simply because those in the majority calculate that it suits them in the short term and that they can probably get away with it. The unavoidable implication is that politicians are not trustworthy, that Parliament does not see itself as accountable and that votes do not necessarily matter.
	So, I believe not only that a referendum is right and appropriate on a treaty of such importance, but that if the Committee were to tell the Government today that a clear promise that could so easily be kept ought to be kept, it would, in a climate of loss of faith in political institutions, do more to restore public confidence in the basic honesty and accountability of our politics than any other action that we could take. The Prime Minister said that trust in the Government was central to his purpose. The leader of the Liberal Democrats called for
	"a new politics, of politicians who listen to people, not themselves."
	If those leaders remain heedless of the arguments for a referendum on the treaty, they will win short-term relief from the views of the electorate tonight, but the damage to their standing and to the politics and reputation of our country and Parliament is something on which they will have to reflect and repent for many years.

David Miliband: This important debate raises fundamental questions about our parliamentary democracy, and about the role of Parliament and its relationship with the people. In our system of government, we do not have a legal test for whether we should hold a referendum, but we do have a clear principle, based on precedent and for many years supported by all the main political parties. Where there is a shift in power of a fundamental nature, it must be put to the people. That is the question that I want to address today. However,
	"every time we have such a referendum it is, in a sense, an abdication of responsibility by the House and the Government of the day. This Government intend to make no such abdication of their responsibilities; nor do they intend to invite the House to abdicate from its responsibility."—[ Official Report, 21 February 1992; Vol. 204, c. 627.]

Nigel Evans: When the Foreign Secretary fought the 2005 general election on a manifesto that promised a referendum on the issue, did he put out a personal statement saying that he was opposed to the holding of that referendum?

David Miliband: No, I did not.

Peter Tapsell: I happen to be one of the Members of this House who voted in favour of a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. If a sufficient number of my colleagues, in all parts of the House, had joined me and helped to carry the vote, we would not have had the Amsterdam or Nice treaties or now the Lisbon treaty. However, 400 of the people who failed to do that have since fled the premises, leaving me virtually alone, as the boy on the still burning deck. We hear a lot about the military covenant, but behind a military covenant is an even more important constitutional position, which is the social contract. That is what the Government have broken, by ignoring their pledge to the electorate to hold a referendum.

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that a significant number of the members of the shadow Cabinet were here in 1992, and each and every one of them voted against a referendum on the Maastricht treaty.

Desmond Swayne: The comparison with Maastricht simply will not wash. No party went to the general election that preceded the ratification of the Maastricht treaty, after it was signed, promising the electorate a referendum, as the Foreign Secretary's party did before the previous election.

David Miliband: I am going to address directly the novel constitutional argument that the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) put on the radio this morning, which is that it is not the content of a treaty that should decide whether there is a referendum.

John Redwood: rose—

Mark Harper: rose—

William Cash: rose—

David Miliband: I will make a little progress and then I will give way to right hon. and hon. Members.
	The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks covered a lot of ground in his speech, but dodged the central question in tonight's vote, which is whether the treaty of Lisbon represents a fundamental shift in the balance of power between the nation state—and this nation state in particular—and the European Union. If it does, there should be a referendum; if it does not, there should not be one.
	Let me address directly the question that has been raised. I can see why the right hon. Gentleman dodged the question of whether there had been a fundamental shift, because on the radio this morning he made the extraordinary claim that it was not the content of treaties that should determine whether they are subject to a referendum. In other words, he denied the constitutional practice that says that it is a shift in the balance of power that determines whether there should be a referendum.

Peter Lilley: rose—

Mark Harper: rose—

William Cash: rose—

David Miliband: I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).

William Cash: Does the Foreign Secretary deny that there is a whole range of fundamental changes in the relationship between the European Union and this country and Parliament by virtue of the national obligation that is imposed on Parliaments, the merger of all existing treaties with legal personality, the declaration of primacy, which for the first time is stated in a treaty, the fact that treaties are created without implementation by Act of Parliament and an extension of the powers to use statutory instruments? A range of fundamental constitutional changes are in the treaty, irrespective of all the other broken promises. The reality is that the Foreign Secretary is wholly and totally wrong in his assessment.

Michael Lord: Order. That was an extremely long intervention.

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman will know that the provisions on legal personality have been around since Maastricht, which was pioneered through the House by the Conservative party.

Peter Lilley: rose—

David Miliband: I am happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman, the former Secretary of State for Social Security.

Peter Lilley: The Foreign Secretary said that a novel constitutional concept was being introduced. Is he saying that it is a novel constitutional concept that Members of Parliament should keep their promises?

David Miliband: No, of course I am not saying that. What I am saying is that referendums were held on devolution in the case of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly precisely because they changed the distribution of power in this country. A proposal to join the euro would also shift power, so a referendum would be necessary. It must be the content of the treaty that determines whether we should have a referendum. I want to go through, in detail, the allegations that have been made about the content of the treaty and then the facts about the treaty, and I will show that there is no way to make the argument that it represents a fundamental shift in the balance of power in this country.

Mark Harper: The Prime Minister met the leader of Ireland to discuss the treaty in July last year. After the meeting, the Prime Minister said that he and the Taoiseach had discussed the European constitution and how it might be taken forward over the next few months. What does the Foreign Secretary think the Prime Minister meant by that?

David Miliband: Every Government and leader in Europe has recognised that the constitution has been abandoned— [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) says that the Prime Minister has said that the treaty is the same. The Prime Minister has never said that the Lisbon treaty is the same as the constitution. The reason he has not said it is because it is not the case.

John Redwood: Is the Foreign Secretary seriously suggesting that a bigger transfer of power was involved when referendums were held on proposals for elected mayors and for the north-east regional assembly? Or is he just trying to find a smokescreen after breaking his own promise because he knows that he would lose a referendum?

David Miliband: No, I am not saying that. My case is that this treaty does not represent a fundamental shift in the balance of power in this country. Furthermore—  [ Interruption. ] As we have discussed on Second Reading— [ Interruption. ] As we discussed— [ Interruption. ]

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. We cannot have interjections from a sedentary position when— [ Interruption. ] Order. We cannot have interjections from a sedentary position when the Foreign Secretary is attempting to answer questions that have been put to him.

David Miliband: On Second Reading, we discussed the fact that, when the former Prime Minister announced that a referendum would be held on the constitutional treaty, he precisely said that it was not for the constitutional nature of the balance of power in that question. So that question was addressed directly on Second Reading, including by the Prime Minister at the time.

Philip Davies: Following the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the Government insist on referendums to set up elected mayors and parish councils. Why on earth will they not keep their promise to hold a referendum when they are transferring so many powers away from this Parliament to the European Union?

David Miliband: The reason is to do with whether there is a fundamental shift in the balance of power, as there was in the cases of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Even the shift to an elected mayor is a big shift in the balance of power for the people in that locality. That is the test that is applied in every case.

David Gauke: If I understand the Foreign Secretary correctly, he has just said that the constitutional treaty did not involve a fundamental shift of constitutional powers. If that is the case, why did he favour a referendum on the constitution?

David Miliband: We went through this in detail on Second Reading. The argument was that it was vital, in the words of the former Prime Minister, to "clear the air" on the European issue— [ Interruption. ] That was the argument that was put— [ Interruption. ] I am reporting to the House what the Prime Minister said at the time. What I believe is important is that we look at the content of the treaty. The content of the treaty cannot justify the claims that have been made about the shift in the balance of power or about the facts in respect of this case.

Iain Duncan Smith: rose—

David Miliband: I shall take a last intervention from the right hon. Gentleman, who has long taken an interest in this issue.

Iain Duncan Smith: Not that long— [ Laughter. ] Well, not as long as some of my colleagues. I am a little confused about the Foreign Secretary's position. He said that the reason for granting a referendum was that there was a fundamental shift in power. He then went on to say that he did not think that there was a fundamental shift in power from the constitution, and that the reason for granting a referendum was that it would clear the air. Do we have it now that the principle behind granting a referendum is that, whenever the air is not clear, we should clear it by holding a referendum?

David Miliband: We do not. We have it very clear that there should be a referendum when there is a shift in the fundamental balance of power. I want to go— [ Interruption. ] I am sorry, but that is a very clear point, and it is important that I address the case at hand.

Kenneth Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman is creating an entirely new constitutional principle—namely, that we hold United Kingdom referendums when there is a shift of power. We held no United Kingdom referendums on Scottish or Welsh devolution, and the reason that we did not was that the Government were not sure that they would win. They would certainly have found a lot of English MPs—even on their own side—opposing the proposals. We have no doctrine of referendums in our constitution. He is inventing the doctrine simply to get out of this extremely unwise election promise. He knows perfectly well that the previous Prime Minister should never have cynically promised a referendum in the first place.

David Miliband: The important issue is that we have experience of one referendum on the European Union, of referendums in respect of Scotland and Wales, and of referendums in respect of local government. Those referendums were all called because of the issue of the balance of power.
	I want to go through the allegations that have been made about this important issue, because some of them are absurd and can be dismissed. There are also substantive issues— [ Interruption. ]

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. We must not have that kind of intervention from the Opposition Front Bench.

David Miliband: There is no power in the treaty for new tax-raising powers for the European Union. There is no replacement of the UK seat on the UN Security Council. There is no danger of French police stalking the streets of London. There is no risk of unwanted changes to our social security system. All those allegations have been made in the course of these debates. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan), who speaks for the Conservative party on energy issues, said that there was a proposal to allow the European Commission to cut off gas supplies from Milford Haven and send them to Ingolstadt. There is no such proposal in the treaty. There is no provision to prevent the UK from supplying oil to another non-EU NATO member at a time of crisis.
	Those are some of the absurd claims that have been made. They have been alleged again and again, and, just like the claims that the Amsterdam treaty would mean the abolition of Britain and that the Nice treaty would mean the end of NATO, none of them is true.
	We know the agenda of the Conservative party.

John Gummer: Would not the right hon. Gentleman find his case much easier to make, without any of this persiflage, if a promise had not been made that there would be a referendum? Those of us who are opposed to referendums in principle did not support that promise, but he did. The problem for the House is that we have a Government who gave in to Mr. Murdoch's pressure for a referendum in order to safeguard the support of  The Sun before the election.

David Miliband: Until I heard the second half of the right hon. Gentleman's intervention, I was going to say that I was about to come to the issue that he had raised on the difference between the constitutional treaty and the Lisbon treaty.

James Clappison: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

David Miliband: No, I need to make some progress.
	Absurd claims have been made about what the treaty does, but there are also some important changes in the treaty. We support them, but the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks and the Conservative party do not. The details are worth clarifying because they show conclusively that the treaty does not constitute a fundamental shift in the balance of power.
	The treaty will increase British voting weight in the Council of Ministers. It will replace the rotating presidency of the EU with a nominated President of the European Council. It will reduce the number of Commissioners, so that they can become a more coherent group. It will increase the power of national Parliaments, in a way that I shall detail in a moment. It will merge Commission posts and allow Commission and Council officials to work more closely together on foreign policy.
	Nothing in the treaty affects the existing powers of EU member states to run their own foreign policy, including at the UN. The treaty, in law, excludes the European Court of Justice from having substantive jurisdiction over foreign policy. This is what the treaty says:
	"The Court of Justice of the European Union shall not have jurisdiction with respect to these provisions".
	That is treaty text. The Foreign Affairs Committee—whose Chairman is here—concluded that
	"it seems highly likely that, under the Lisbon Treaty, the Common Foreign and Security Policy will remain"—

William Cash: On a point of order, Sir Michael. The Foreign Secretary said that he was dealing with important matters of constitutional change and the balance of power. He is now reciting a number of matters that have come out of the treaty but that have nothing whatever to do with constitutional change.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. These are not matters for the Chair. They are matters for debate now.

David Miliband: The issue of what the treaty does in respect of foreign policy, justice, home affairs and other matters is central to the question of whether it shifts the balance of power in this country.

Frank Field: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

David Miliband: May I just finish my quotation from the Foreign Affairs Committee, as it is important in this respect? The Committee rightly said that
	"it seems highly likely that, under the Lisbon Treaty, the Common Foreign and Security Policy will remain an intergovernmental area, driven by the Member States."
	That recognition in respect of foreign policy is matched in other areas, including, critically, the issue of justice and home affairs, which has been raised by the Liberal Democrats.

Frank Field: While it is important for the Foreign Secretary to set out what he thinks are the differences, are we not as a party up against one fundamental fact—that the voters out there think that they were promised a vote on what we are discussing? Given that four out of 10 voters decided not to vote at the last election and that we were returned by only 21 per cent. of the total electorate, does he think that what we are proposing will help to push up the turnout or not?

David Miliband: I think that many factors will drive up the turnout at the next general election —[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend says that the passage and contents of the Bill will play into that, and I am sure that that is the case, but I think that we would all agree that it is in our interest to drive turnout up not down. I would say back to him that we are honour bound to recognise that there are big differences between the constitutional treaty and the Lisbon treaty, and part of our job in politics is to explain those differences.

Michael Connarty: rose—

David Miliband: I am happy to give way to the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee.

Michael Connarty: I heard the Foreign Secretary pray in aid the comments of the Foreign Affairs Committee, so it might be useful to put on the record the full and correct quote, which has been much abused, from the European Scrutiny Committee. The question is whether the new treaty produces the same substantial effect as the constitutional treaty. We said that that is the case only
	"for those countries which have not requested derogations or opt-outs from the full range of agreements in the Treaty",
	and we then referred readers to the table and the annexe in the report. In praying in aid for his case, my right hon. Friend might reflect on the wording of a defeated amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), which referred to the proposition that the reform treaty was
	"substantially equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty, even if it is not the same."

David Miliband: As it happens, I am about to come on to another quotation from my hon. Friend's Committee, which is important for justice and home affairs matters.

John Baron: rose—

David Miliband: I shall take an intervention on foreign policy first.

John Baron: Is not the Foreign Secretary trying to create a smokescreen by addressing some of the more absurd claims about the treaty? Why does he not address the fundamental questions put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), one of which is that many European leaders have stated that there is very little difference between the constitution and the treaty? Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is the case?

David Miliband: I am coming on to that, but every single European leader and every single Head of Government said that the constitutional treaty had been "abandoned"—their word, not mine; it had not been diluted or reformed, but "abandoned".

Several hon. Members: rose —

David Miliband: I am going to make some progress because it is important to come on to justice and home affairs. I will take some further interventions later.
	Nothing in this treaty will reduce the UK's sovereignty over immigration, asylum, visas, police co-operation or civil law. Why? Because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) said, we have secured an extension of the UK's current opt-in arrangements. The UK has a right to choose when it wants to share power by joining EU arrangements in those areas. Let me quote what the European Scrutiny Committee said on the subject. It concluded that it was
	"clear from the 'opt-in' arrangements that the UK is free to decide whether or not to take part, and to that extent is able to protect the distinctive features of the legal systems of the UK".
	Similarly, nothing in the charter of fundamental rights extends the ability of any court—European or national—to strike down UK law. Professor Alan Dashwood of Cambridge university, a leading expert in this area, concluded that
	"the Charter is not, in itself, a source of rights but simply provides a record of rights that receive protection within the Union, from one source or another".

Angela Browning: Is it not the case that one of the core changes is that the treaty not only extends competences, but means that many new policy areas will now become shared competences? Over time, disputes in those policy areas will be determined by the European Court of Justice. As declaration 17 annexed to the treaty shows, that takes primacy over this House, which is a huge shift of power.

David Miliband: In respect of article 17, that has been the fundamental issue regarding Britain's membership of the treaty of Rome since 1957. If the hon. Lady objects to that, she should have an objection to our membership of the whole of the European Union.

Gerald Howarth: The Foreign Secretary has prayed in aid some comments of the Foreign Affairs Committee, so may I remind him that that Committee also said:
	"We conclude that there is no material difference between the provisions on foreign affairs in the Constitutional Treaty which the Government made subject to approval in a referendum and those in the Lisbon Treaty on which a referendum is being denied"?
	Is that an absurd claim? As far as I am concerned, my constituents in Aldershot want a referendum. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is absolutely right that the Labour party will pay a big price for denying the people the right to have their voice heard on this matter.

David Miliband: I would never describe the Foreign Affairs Committee's conclusions as absurd. However, to give just one example, under the constitutional treaty all foreign policy activity was merged into a single treaty pillar. Under the Lisbon treaty, there is a wholly separate area of European affairs dedicated to foreign policy. If ever the hon. Gentleman wanted a guarantee about the continuing intergovernmental nature of foreign policy, there it is.

Graham Stringer: I am following my right hon. Friend's attempts to define the Lisbon treaty. Can he think of a better definition than this—that the treaty
	"ensures the new Europe can work effectively, and that Britain keeps control of key national interests like foreign policy, taxation, social security and defence. The Treaty sets out what the EU can do and what it cannot. It strengthens the voice of national parliaments and governments in EU affairs"?
	That, I think, is the essence of what my right hon. Friend has been saying. Fortunately, it comes from our manifesto of 2005, which defines the constitutional treaty. Can he tell us the difference between that definition and his definition of the Lisbon treaty?

David Miliband: There are big differences. First, the structure of the constitution abandoned all previous treaties that governed the EU. This treaty does not do that. Secondly, in respect of a range of policies—notably on justice and home affairs, but also on other areas—the content is different. Thirdly, in respect of the consequences, the constitutional treaty was alleged by many Conservative Members to be a slipway to a superstate. Under the Lisbon treaty and the conclusions of last month's European Council, there is an agreement that there shall be no further institutional reform for the foreseeable future. So in structure, in content and in consequence, this is different.

Iain Duncan Smith: When the votes were held in France and the Netherlands and the constitutional treaty as it stood was stopped, the Germans decided under their presidency to hold all these discussions again and sent round a letter—its existence was denied, but it did exist—to all the Governments, including the British Government, asking how best to resuscitate the process. One question asked was:
	"How do you assess the proposal made by some member states"—
	that must have included the UK—
	"using different terminology without changing the legal substance, for example with regard to the title of the treaty"?
	How did the Her Majesty's Government respond?

David Miliband: I would be happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman on that particular issue, but I would say that there are important differences between the constitutional treaty— [Interruption.] I do not have in my briefing pack the letter we sent back to the German presidency in June 2005, but I am happy to find out for the right hon. Gentleman. What is important, however, is the fact that the constitutional treaty has important differences from the Lisbon treaty.

Angela Smith: rose—

David Miliband: I give way to my hon. Friend—

Peter Lilley: On a point of order, Sir Michael. Is it not a convention that when this House debates important matters, papers emanating from the Government spelling out policies are placed on the Table? The Foreign Secretary has finally admitted that the Government replied to the German letter.  [Interruption.] The answer is there in the hands of— [Interruption.]

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is right in some circumstances, but his point applies only when Ministers are quoting from state papers. In any case, it would appear that the situation has now been resolved.

David Miliband: The point has been made that discussions were ongoing at that stage, but I understand that we did not respond to the letter that was sent by—

Kenneth Clarke: I think that I am likely to be voting with the right hon. Gentleman tonight, but I am not sure that I shall be able to agree with any of his arguments in favour of that proposition.
	Given that the right hon. Gentleman's Government negotiated this treaty, will he explain why it is in Britain's interest to ratify it, and what improvements it makes to the operation of the Union? Will he stop all this nonsense about its being different from the constitution when it is plainly the same in substance, and explain why it is better not to hold a referendum but have the issue decided in Parliament? He is getting into trouble because of the deviousness and, at times, the ridiculousness of the arguments he is using, which are far removed from the main points.

David Miliband: As I said a few moments ago, the increase in British voting weight in the European Council and the changes in respect of foreign policy are important and useful changes that will help British work in the European Union.

Angela Smith: The numerous interventions from Conservative Members demonstrate their inability to understand the difference between the Lisbon treaty which we are discussing now, and the earlier abandoned constitution. Does that not indicate that Eurosceptic thinking has taken over mainstream policy in the Conservative party?

David Miliband: That is an important point and one to which I shall return at the end of my speech, although I do not think that the allegation can be made of all Conservative Members.

Gordon Banks: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

David Miliband: No. I want to make some progress.
	The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks talked a great deal about the passerelles, which he said introduced a new "ratchet" clause. Such clauses have been around for 22 years, and have been used on one occasion. They were first introduced by the Single European Act, and have been extended in every subsequent treaty. Far from being novel or an innovation, they are an established part of the EU machinery. Contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman alleged on the radio this morning, there are new powers for nation states. Not only must every Government agree to them, but every Parliament has new rights as well. Furthermore, it is not true that the treaty extends qualified majority voting in a way that undermines the British national interest.

Gordon Banks: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

David Miliband: No. I want to make some progress.
	Sixteen changes do not affect us, because we are not in economic and monetary union and we have opt-ins on justice and home affairs. Fifteen are purely procedural—for instance, the procedures on the Comitology Committee, and the internal rules for appointing the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee. Those are not threats to the constitutional balance in this country. Twenty changes break down barriers to action in areas where that is clearly in the UK interest, from energy to development and disaster assistance.
	Today the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks announced that he opposed all those changes. So he is abandoning the UK interest in key areas. That means no strengthening of EU research capacity, no swift route to protecting British business ideas and no new impetus for the promotion of energy security, let alone disaster aid. That is not defending the national interest; it is abandoning it.
	As for the foreign policy high representative, is it true that the treaty subverts the power of national Foreign Ministers under the auspices of the EU? No, it is not. The high representative will answer to Foreign Ministers, and foreign and defence policy is retained in a separate treaty.

Denis MacShane: Has the Foreign Secretary had time to read a short but very compact biography of Edward Heath which I wrote last year? In it he will see references to all the previous EU treaty debates going back to the 1960s. The arguments have not changed, save that then the League of Empire Loyalists, the national executive committee of the Labour party, the Communist party and the Monday Club opposed Europe, whereas now it is the mainstream Conservative party that opposes it.

David Miliband: My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. I hope he will send me a signed copy of his book for me to take away on my summer holidays. Perhaps he would also like to provide an executive summary to help me through the more detailed aspects.

Chris Bryant: I hate to say this, but I agree with the shadow Foreign Secretary. He said:
	"Democratic accountability is under threat...from the Government's regular use of referendums".
	That is why I have never supported the idea of a referendum, particularly a referendum on a treaty. It seems to me that if the people of Britain were to say yes or no, we would not know precisely to what elements of the treaty they were saying yes or no. We would not know whether they were agreeing with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), with the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), or with Labour Members who would like to see very different changes to the treaty.

David Miliband: My hon. Friend makes an important and good point. The record of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks in opposing referendums in the 1990s, both in practice during the Maastricht debates and in theory in his writings, is well known.

Clive Efford: I think that when the arguments about the referendum die down people will understand that the mainstream Conservative party is, quite simply, flatly opposed to our continued membership of Europe.
	Has my right hon. Friend noticed that he has been intervened on three times by former Secretaries of State who voted for the paving Bill that preceded opposition to the Greater London council? I do not recall any reference to any democratic process or any manifesto during that procedure. Does my right hon. Friend not find their selective memory somewhat astonishing?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend has used his own very good memory to good effect in exposing the hypocrisy of the Conservative party on this issue.

Gordon Banks: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

David Miliband: I will, for the last time.

Gordon Banks: The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said that, while he thought he could support the Government in tonight's vote, he did not think he could support much of the Foreign Secretary's argument. May I play matchmaker, and give the Foreign Secretary and the right hon. and learned Gentleman an opportunity to agree on something—that failure to ratify the treaty would plunge the United Kingdom into crisis, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman was reported as saying on television this morning?

David Miliband: I certainly believe that it would send us to the margins of Europe, which would be very damaging to the national interest.
	At every stage the Lisbon treaty amends existing treaties instead of replacing them, contrary to what was done by the constitutional treaty. The constitutional treaty restarted the EU from scratch. It abolished previous treaties, and created a new one. The constitutional treaty did not make special provision for Britain in respect of justice and home affairs. The reform treaty does, in inordinate detail and in respect of all JHA measures. The constitutional treaty left open the opportunity for the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks to advance specious arguments about a European superstate.
	Those are the reasons why the Law Society of England and Wales says that this treaty
	"does not have the same ambitions as the previous Constitutional Treaty".
	It is why eight European Governments who promised a referendum on the constitution no longer consider it necessary. It is why the Conservative Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Mr. Balkenende, has said:
	"We are not talking about a Constitution. The Constitution has gone."
	It is why Giuliano Amato, who was prayed in aid by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks, says that what was agreed was "a cluster of amendments", not "a new constitution". It is why Professor Damian Chalmers, a leading authority at the London School of Economics, says that this is
	"probably the most limited reform, with the exception of the Treaty of Nice, that we have seen in the last twenty years."
	So the content of the treaty does not justify a referendum, and the comparison to other treaties does not either.
	The Single European Act—which was piloted through the House by the Conservative party—set out the terms for the creation of a single market, created the concept of the convergence of economic and monetary policies, and provided for co-operation on foreign policy. No referendum was required; I wonder why. [Hon. Members: "Why?"] The reason why is that it did not shift the balance of power in this country.
	The treaty of Maastricht—

Mark Harper: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

David Miliband: No. I must make some progress.
	The treaty of Maastricht provided the blueprint for economic and monetary union, and added common foreign and security policy. As the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) has said, it was a
	"far more significant piece of legislation determining our constitutional arrangements",
	but still we had no referendum. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks voted against a referendum on the issue, along with all other members of the current shadow Cabinet.

Mark Harper: rose—

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman has been so polite and persistent that I am happy to give way to him.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary. Will he acknowledge that this is the key difference? Not only was a promise to hold a referendum on the Maastricht treaty not given, but in the manifesto before the election there was a pledge to ratify it if the Conservative Government were re-elected. This case is completely different. The simple point is that the Foreign Secretary's Government promised a referendum, and are breaking that promise today.

David Miliband: I do not know how many times I must say this before the hon. Gentleman recognises that it has been said. The constitution is not what is before us today. Before us is a Lisbon treaty which is not the constitution.

Jeremy Wright: rose—

Bob Spink: rose—

David Miliband: I want to bring my speech to a close.
	On day five of the debate, on foreign affairs, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks, who speaks for the Opposition—[Hon. Members: " Brilliantly."] He is a very good after-dinner speaker, although I am not sure about the content. The right hon. Gentleman let the cat out of the bag. He could not think of one change in the treaty that he supported—not a single one. He wants to rely on the previous arrangements agreed at Nice, but what did he say about the Nice treaty? He opposed that, too. He claimed that the European security and defence policy provisions were a step towards "a superstate" and that they would progressively "move away from NATO." So he does not support the Nice treaty.
	What about arrangements before that, such as the treaty agreed at Amsterdam? The right hon. Gentleman opposed that, too. He said:
	"Amsterdam was a bad Treaty. Bad for Europe and bad for Britain".
	There is a pattern here. The right hon. Gentleman opposes every single treaty that comes before us: no to the Lisbon treaty, no to the Nice treaty, and no to the Amsterdam Treaty. No, no, no: we have heard that before from the Dispatch Box.
	That makes the key point that the Conservative party has a fundamental problem: 18 years after Mrs. Thatcher's departure from office, it is still haunted by the Thatcherite policy on Europe, and 16 years after Maastricht, the rebels on the fringes of the party are now calling the shots. It is no wonder one of the Conservative party's MEPs has described its Europe policy as a poisonous fungus eating away at the heart of the party.
	The question before us is simple: do the contents of the treaty constitute a fundamental shift in the balance of power? The answer is no. The responsibility is ours, as Members of Parliament; I say, vote down the amendments and let us do what we are paid for.

Edward Davey: It is already clear from the debate that the key question is whether the Lisbon treaty is the same as the constitutional treaty. There is a strong case that Members who promised a treaty referendum at the general election and who agree with the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) that the treaties are the same should back the Conservative amendment, and that those who do not agree with him should not support it. However, Members who are in favour of a referendum on the principle, as the Liberal Democrats are, but not on one on Lisbon on the grounds that it is different from the old constitutional treaty, should abstain tonight, as we will.
	The Conservatives have said throughout our proceedings that the old and new treaties are more or less the same. They are wrong. The truth is that the treaties are different in nature—different in the very essence of what they mean—and that for the UK especially there are key differences in substantive detail. The fact that the Conservatives try to ignore that does them absolutely no credit—and neither does their shabby complicity with the Government yesterday, when they conspired to restrict choice and curb free speech in this House. They have gagged open debate on Europe in this House, and we will make sure the voters know that.

Iain Duncan Smith: I am fascinated by what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I must ask him a very simple question. Alongside the Government, he has consistently made a strong case that the treaty is not the same as the constitution—that they are very different. That is the substance of his case. We think that the Government are reneging on their position, but they are voting against the amendments to hold a referendum. Why is it that, with his strong case, the hon. Gentleman cannot bring himself to vote either against the referendum or for it, but instead just sits on the fence?

Edward Davey: It is a shame that the right hon. Gentleman, who is a distinguished Member of this House, is not listening to what I am saying, and what we have been saying day in, day out. We have strongly argued that our pledge at the last election would be best honoured by an in/out vote; that is the nearest we can get to honouring it now that the constitutional treaty is dead.
	Let me return to the differences between the treaties.

Mark Harper: Let me just ask the hon. Gentleman this: my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the shadow Foreign Secretary, made it clear that not only have we tabled amendments today, but the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson) has tabled one too, and it gives the option of having a referendum not only on the Lisbon treaty but on the in/out question that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) asks for. Why then are the Liberal Democrats not going to support that amendment, which could, of course, be amended in the other place, and instead are just going to sit on their hands? Is that because they are going to adopt the principle of constructive abstention—a new concept in this House—or is it because they are too frightened of their constituents?

Edward Davey: I do not know if the hon. Gentleman has actually read the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson). It is an amendment that does not pose a question. Its tabler—we are looking forward to hearing from him shortly—has said that if the amendment were agreed to, his Government would put the question that we Liberal Democrats have been asking for. Yesterday, however, his colleagues voted against that; they voted against even allowing us to debate it. So why on earth does he think that we are going to vote for an amendment that offers those on his Front Bench the possibility of posing a question that they have refused to debate? It is an absurdity; it is one of the most ludicrous amendments ever to come before the House.

Chris Bryant: I have never read a Liberal Democrat manifesto, and I have no intention of doing so in the near future. For all I know, the hon. Gentleman might be right to say that the best representation of his party's case would be to have a referendum on whether Britain should be in or out of the European Union. However, there is a serious point to today's debate, which is this: surely the Liberal Democrats can make their mind up whether there should be a referendum on the treaty itself? I know what the hon. Gentleman really thinks; he thinks there should not be. He should therefore join us in the Lobby tonight.

Edward Davey: Let me try once again, for the hon. Gentleman's benefit. We have made it absolutely clear that we are in favour of the principle of a referendum on the European question, because we want to honour our pledge at the last election. We are not going to vote against the principle of a referendum tonight, which is why we are abstaining. We wanted the chance to debate our referendum question, but the hon. Gentleman, working with the Conservative party, conspired to prevent that. He should be ashamed of that position.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Edward Davey: I want to make some progress; I will give way again later.
	Let me return to the differences between the treaties, and in particular the different natures of the treaties. One treaty was of supreme constitutional significance; the other treaty simply makes modest reforms. One treaty replaced all the past EU treaties with one document; the other is merely an amending treaty. One treaty would, effectively, have given the people a chance to vote on the principle of Britain's membership of the EU, and the other would give the people a chance to vote on whether they wanted to cut the number of EU Commissioners by a third.

Kate Hoey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey: I will give way later.
	The truth is that the Conservatives do not want to know the facts about the differences between the treaties. Why? Because they are embarrassed about their sorry legacy. The treaties that saw the most significant transfer of power, the Single European Act and Maastricht, were pushed through this House by Tory Governments, with not a word from the Tory Front Bench about a referendum. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, those on the Conservative Front Bench have only ever promised referendums when in opposition, and only on the minor treaties such as Amsterdam, Nice and now Lisbon. That shows how confused and opportunist their position is.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Edward Davey: I shall give way to the hon. Member for St. Albans (Anne Main) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor).

Anne Main: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that this treaty is simply a bundling-up of a few amendments that he feels is necessary, why does he not support the Government tonight and ensure that we do not have a referendum, which they might well lose?

Edward Davey: I refer the hon. Lady to the record, as I have answered that question at three separate stages.

Matthew Taylor: Did my hon. Friend notice that when the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), listed changes to the EU that had been set out in manifestos or passed through referendums, he omitted to mention the Single European Act—a surprising omission, given that that was the fundamental change that moved us from the Common Market to a single European Union? The truth is that the Conservative party has no record on this in government; it says a lot in opposition because it plays the field and seeks support from anti-Europeans, but in practice in government it votes entirely contrary to that. That does the Conservative party no credit at all.

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The difference between the Lisbon treaty and the constitutional treaty is to do with that very point. The constitutional treaty would have allowed people a vote on the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty, and Nice and Amsterdam. We should have had a referendum on that, because it was a genuinely constitutional treaty wrapping up all the other treaties in one document. The Lisbon treaty does not do that. A vote on Lisbon offers no vote on Rome, no vote on Maastricht and no vote on the Single European Act. It really is that simple.

John Redwood: I am grateful to the Liberal spokesman for giving way. Does he not understand that people outside this place want a vote on what we are debating today, and think that that was promised to them by the Liberal Democrats? Now that he is so steeped in broken promises, and if he does not honour his words from the last election, why would they believe anything that the Liberal Democrats promise at the next election?

Edward Davey: The right hon. Gentleman would have done his case some good if he had voted with us yesterday. He would have enabled this House to vote tonight on a range of options, but his failure to do that means that when he makes such interventions today, he does not serve his own purpose.

Don Foster: May I take my hon. Friend back to a point that he made a few minutes ago? He made it very clear that the outcome of an in/out referendum and its implications would be very clear, but he also said that a referendum as proposed by the Conservative party would enable people to decide, for example, on whether to reduce the number of Commissioners. Could he confirm that, even if people voted as he has just described, it is not clear that that would lead to a reduction in the number of Commissioners? Indeed, it is not at all clear what the outcome of a no vote in a Conservative referendum would be.

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and when the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks was challenged on this point, he could give no answer. In fact, there were many points today when he could give no answer.
	I do not believe that we should judge the differences between the two treaties on a word-count, but the Committee might be interested to know that the constitutional treaty contained 157,000 words and the Lisbon treaty contains 44,000 words. That is the difference: one of the documents had all the treaties in it, and the other does not. Only the Conservatives could deny that significant difference.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Edward Davey: I have given way already, and I promise that I will give way later, but first I want to make a little more progress.
	I have been focusing on the difference in the nature of the treaties for a very good reason. We Liberal Democrats believe that referendums should be used not willy-nilly, but with care and sparingly, for issues of constitutional significance. Even for issues of constitutional significance, it is not always clear to me that we need a referendum. I do not think that anyone in any party argued for a referendum when this House passed the Human Rights Act—or, indeed, back in 1950, when the European convention on human rights was signed. We rarely, if at all, hear arguments that there should be a referendum on reform of the House of Lords or the Freedom of Information Act, so there are many constitutional issues on which people do not think there should be a referendum.
	We believe that such analysis is directly relevant when one comes to make the judgment about whether a European treaty deserves a referendum. Treaties that make modest institutional reforms to make the European Union more efficient for enlargement, such as Lisbon, simply do not have the constitutional impact that some Members wish to ascribe to them.

Kenneth Clarke: Does not the history of our European debates demonstrate that people demand referendums only when they think that they are going to win them, and that the Liberal Democrats vote for a referendum only when they are confident that they are going to lose the vote, so that no referendum will actually happen?

Edward Davey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been a real ally during the debates on the Lisbon treaty, but I think that today he is not being one. He will not be surprised to know that I disagree with what he says.

Kate Hoey: The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who has a very principled position on referendums, has said today—unless I have got him wrong—that the treaty and the constitution are the same. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is misleading the House?

Edward Davey: I would not say that about the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I would like to quote him on this treaty. He said just last year:
	"What we have now"—
	in the Lisbon treaty—
	"is far less important than Maastricht. I think the idea we have a referendum"—
	on the treaty—
	"is frankly absurd. Some of the Eurosceptics will have demanded a referendum just about the date on the top of the piece of paper."
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman, because he has suffered under them, knows exactly how bizarre the positions of the Eurosceptics are.

Julian Lewis: Of course, the consistency of my right hon. and learned Friend's position is that because he believes that a referendum is inappropriate in this case, he is going to vote with the Government. The logic of the hon. Gentleman's position is that he should be voting with the Government, too, because he does not believe that a referendum is appropriate. Is not the real reason why he does not have enough of the courage of his convictions to vote with the Government the knowledge that some of his own Liberal Democrat colleagues are reluctant not to vote for a referendum, because they know that they would be breaking their promises at the last general election?

Edward Davey: That was not a very good try from the hon. Gentleman. He said that we were afraid of a referendum. We are absolutely not afraid of a referendum. His party could have supported us yesterday, and we could have had another question on a referendum debated today.

Jeremy Browne: Has not the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) perfectly summarised the Conservatives' position? In the 18 years for which they had a majority of MPs in this House and could have had a referendum at any point they wanted, they chose not to—but just at this point, when they do not have enough MPs to win a referendum vote, they have suddenly become in favour of one.

Edward Davey: Absolutely; my hon. Friend describes the Conservatives' position completely.

Malcolm Bruce: The Conservatives have consistently failed to acknowledge that if they were to win the vote tonight, they would be in deep trouble. They have in no way explained how, if they won a referendum on a no vote, they would take the matter forward, how the British people would have voted and why they would not in fact plunge Britain and the United Kingdom into a state of paralysis in terms of our continuing relations with the European Union. The Conservatives can only vote as they intend to vote tonight knowing that they will lose.

Edward Davey: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, but I have to say that the position for the Conservatives is even worse. The only other parties in Europe that would support their position are Sinn Fein, a rag-bag of fascist and communist parties and the Dutch animal party. Those are the European parties with which they would be left to negotiate. The truth is that the Tories are isolated with extremists in Europe.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Edward Davey: I want to make some progress, but I will take interventions later.

Angela Browning: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Edward Davey: No, I want to make some progress.  [ Interruption. ]

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has indicated that he wants to make some progress but will take interventions later.

Edward Davey: The Minister has informed me from a sedentary position that the new Government of Cyprus, who are communist, are actually supporting the treaty. I did not intend to do a disservice to them, so I am grateful to the Minister for that.
	In examining the difference in the constitutional nature of the two treaties, I have been taking advice from the speeches of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks. Back in 2006, he made a very interesting comment on the nature of European treaties. He said of the defunct constitutional treaty that
	"the fact that it was a Constitution, not simply a treaty, would have revolutionised the EU."
	There we have it—a revolutionary document, or a simple treaty? Referendums are the democratic way— [ Interruption. ] Revolutions are important in our government, and I would suggest that referendums are the democratic way to judge constitutional revolutions, but they are absolutely not the way to referee institutional reforms. That is why we Liberal Democrats believe that the only way to honour the pledge on Europe that most Members of this House gave at the last election is an in/out referendum.
	We heard yesterday, and we have heard today, accusations that people think that this is some sort of ruse—that somehow, we have made it up, that we imagined it all of a sudden. Let me take the House back to the history of the pledge that we made. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr. Kennedy), the then leader of the Liberal Democrats, explained before the general election what we considered our pledge to mean. When arguing the case for a referendum on the constitutional treaty, he said:
	"It's time for this debate—time for us to decide what we actually want from Europe. I believe, once the argument has been joined, the consensus will be that it's better to be in than out."
	He was right; that was the significance of our referendum pledge on the constitutional treaty.

Peter Lilley: May I help the hon. Gentleman explain why his party cannot decide whether to vote in favour of keeping its promises or to vote against doing so? The explanation was spelt out by the leader of his party, who said that it would all depend on the electoral arithmetic in the House. The Liberal Democrats would vote for a referendum proposal that would be defeated, but because their joining us would mean that a referendum would take place, they have decided to abstain.

Edward Davey: That is absolutely not the case.

Peter Bone: I have listened to many of the Committee proceedings, during which the hon. Gentleman has made a strong case for the Lisbon treaty. He made exactly the same point in  The Scotsman . He cited the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, a former leader of the Liberal Democrats, saying that a vote on the Lisbon treaty would effectively be an in/out referendum. If that is effectively an in/out referendum, why on earth do they not vote for it?

Edward Davey: My point was that a vote on the constitutional treaty was the relevant in/out referendum. The hon. Gentleman has been honourable in his approach. He is from the "Better Off Out" group and he voted with us on 14 November, when we were grateful for his support.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Edward Davey: I shall make some progress.
	I have dealt at length with the difference in nature between the treaties, so let me deal with the differences of substantive detail. When one looks at the really big changes proposed in the old treaty, one finds that, as has emerged from the debate, by far the biggest one was on justice and home affairs. To be specific—as this debate so far has not been—the proposal that the EU would have competence over cross-border police co-operation and cross-border aspects of criminal justice represents, to any fair-minded person, a big shift. It is arguable whether it is of major constitutional significance, but it was the biggest proposed transfer of power in the original treaty.
	What happened to that transfer provision in the time between the old and new treaties? It remained for other member states, but the United Kingdom negotiated new opt-ins. That is a massive change. When pressed, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks had to acknowledge that, in a way that Conservatives had not done during the rest of our proceedings. What is even more interesting about the UK opt-ins negotiated at Lisbon, which were not in the old treaty, is that they went much further; indeed, they took power back from the EU. Britain gained new opt-ins on aspects of JHA in areas that the Conservatives had signed away at Maastricht. That is one of the greatest ironies of this debate. The Conservatives not only want a referendum on a document that is significantly different, but in opposing the Lisbon treaty, they oppose powers being brought back to this country.

George Howarth: Is not comparing the Lisbon treaty with the former constitution rather like comparing the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash)? The similarities are superficial but the differences are profound.

Edward Davey: The right hon. Gentleman has it in one, and I congratulate him.

David Chaytor: I return to the reference to Maastricht. This is our 11th day of debate on the Lisbon treaty. Has a member of the official Opposition explained at any point during those 11 days, which have involved many hours of debate each day, how the Lisbon treaty contains an issue of greater constitutional significance than was contained in the Maastricht treaty?

Edward Davey: Absolutely not; there has been a deafening silence. Interestingly, up to this point the Conservatives could not wait to intervene on me, but when I made the point about substantive difference and JHA they would not comment or intervene. They have been found out.

William Cash: rose—

Edward Davey: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will be able to say what the differences are.

William Cash: I would rather deal initially with the reference to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and me. It is perfectly apparent from our proceedings that he, like me, has been honest in his convictions on this issue. Our approaches have been based on our assessments of the way in which Europe should go, and that is why we have so much in common and why, despite our differences, we can maintain a parliamentary friendship.

Edward Davey: I doubt whether a love-in is emerging in the Conservative party. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wants to be a therapist, but I do not deny the veracity of what he says.
	When one examines both treaties, one finds some similarities. I have never sought to deny that, but the similarities are on the modest measures—on the less significant, non-constitutional issues. People have tried to quantify the similarities by number—the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks talked about that—but, interestingly, not by importance. They have also quantified them by saying how much of the Lisbon treaty was in the constitutional treaty, but not by saying how much of the constitutional treaty is in the Lisbon treaty; those are two different things.

Bob Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey: No.
	Let us examine some of the many similarities. Both treaties sought to change "ecu" to "euro" and "economic community" to "European Union" in all the past treaties. Both treaties contain a hatful of useful reforms, from energy liberalisation to information sharing about sex offenders, from cutting the bureaucracy to strengthening accountability. Are those the reasons why any of us promised a referendum? Absolutely not. Is it contentious to co-operate on tackling terrorism more effectively? Do we need a referendum on that? Why are the Conservatives so worried about Britain being more able to influence countries in eastern Europe? Is it to clamp down on the trafficking of guns, of drugs or of people? As has been said, when the facts change and the treaties change, people should have the courage to admit that.

Gisela Stuart: I would like to challenge the hon. Gentleman's use of the word "modest". I think it is good that the size of the Commission will be reduced, because I want an effective Commission, but we must consider the institutional structures. There is a basic principle that at any one time every country should be represented in the Commission. Once the Commission's size is reduced that will no longer happen. That is significant, so the treaty contains big changes. Some may be good, others not so good, but the word "modest" does not apply.

Edward Davey: I am afraid that I disagree with the hon. Lady. The idea that that is a constitutional issue deserving of a referendum is wrong. She will have to talk about the transfers of powers; that is the issue. The transfers of competence in the treaty concern things such as space policy. I do not know whether other hon. Members think that we should have a referendum about space policy, but I do not believe we should.

Andrew Murrison: rose—

Edward Davey: No, I will not give way, because I want to make some progress. As the House knows, the Liberal Democrats believe that there should be a referendum on Britain's membership, because as pro-Europeans, we want to argue that case. We believe that such a referendum would enable us to get on to the front foot for the first time in a generation to argue the case for Europe. More importantly, it would enable us to set to rest people's concerns about Europe and rebuild the deep coalition for Europe. Whether on climate change or on globalisation, on beating terrorism or on tackling international crime, the arguments for the future role of Europe are as strong as the past arguments for a Europe that has helped to bring peace and prosperity, democracy and human rights to our once battered and divided continent.
	With so much at stake, there is a price to be paid for a strategy of Eurosceptic appeasement, which some pro-Europeans have adopted. That appeasement process means that deliberate misrepresentations of Europe go unchallenged, policies that are in the interest of Britain are not adopted, and the power of Britain's voice and influence at the European table is diminished and reduced. How long can we go on appeasing the people who hold such views? They are damaging Britain's national interest. The Foreign Secretary and his colleagues must address that point, because they are in danger of becoming the arch-appeasers.
	The Prime Minister will jump when Mr. Murdoch calls, but arrived deliberately late for a European summit with 26 other countries. Rather than running away from their pledge on a referendum, Labour should have joined us yesterday. After all, it was Tony Blair who said about the referendum in 2004:
	"It is time to resolve once and for all whether this country, Britain, wants to be at the centre and heart of European decision making or not."
	For once, he knew the historic significance of what he had signed.

Kate Hoey: Will the hon. Gentleman include in the Liberal Democrats' next election manifesto a pledge to have an in/out referendum? If so, will the electorate believe them, given that their last manifesto said that they wanted a referendum on the treaty?

Edward Davey: The hon. Lady still has not got it, and I am slightly worried for her. I will argue for the inclusion of an in-out referendum in our manifesto, but we shall decide that in the proper way. I do not think that the Foreign Secretary or the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks are writing their manifestos tonight either.
	It is time that we took the Europhobes on and called their bluff. I am sceptical about Eurosceptics. On the whole, they are really anti-Europeans and Europhobes, seeking to adopt a veneer of respectability and unwilling to see that to reform Europe is to be in Europe, at the table, arguing for your views. With a referendum on membership, the weakness of that position would be exposed, and with the yes vote winning through, as I believe it would, Britain could be unshackled from the chains of appeasement and ensure that European policy was based once again on a clear calculation of the national interest, and not on the interests of a weak Government avoiding screaming anti-European headlines.
	We know from the polls that it is the referendum on membership that the British people really want. The MORI poll last weekend was the only poll of the British people that has asked the relevant question—whether
	"if there were to be a referendum on Britain's relationship with Europe, would you prefer it to be a referendum only on the Lisbon Treaty, or a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU."
	In that poll, more than two to one backed the in/out option.
	Unfortunately, that option is not before the House because Labour and the Conservatives ganged up to gag the proposal the British people want. It has been rejected by the Conservatives because it would split them from top to bottom. By gagging debate and by opposing the vote that the British people really want, the Conservatives have once again lost the plot on Europe. They deserve to lose the vote tonight.

Stephen Byers: I wish to support the position taken by the Foreign Secretary and to argue against the amendments and new clauses. I shall make three particular points, which I shall do briefly as I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.
	My first point concerns the history of the manifesto commitment in 2005. Secondly, I shall argue that the Lisbon treaty is a clear departure from the constitutional treaty that was being considered at that time—some of those differences have already been outlined. Thirdly, I shall discuss the constitutional position of this House and the role that we play in taking key national decisions.

Bob Spink: I shall present a petition later today on a referendum on this treaty. The Clerks have asked me to change the people's words from
	"rat on a manifesto commitment"
	to
	"renege on a manifesto commitment".
	Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that is a more decorous description of the policy of his party and the Liberal Democrats on this issue?

Stephen Byers: No, and I shall explain why. The hon. Gentleman has a principled position on the European Union, which a fair number of his colleagues share—they want to get out. The past 11 days of debate have made it clear that the new leadership in the Conservative party has not been able to move the party to the centre of British politics, where the majority of people believe that we are better off as part of the European Union. There is still a group in the Conservative party that has a stranglehold on policy on Europe, and it wants to take Britain out of the European Union. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming that he is part of that group.
	My first point concerns the history of the manifesto commitment in 2005. In 2004, the then Prime Minister took the view that the constitutional treaty that was being developed in the European Union, with the help of some of my hon. Friends, who played a key role, was in essence a refounding of the institution. The constitutional treaty aimed to repeal all the existing treaties and replace them. The former Prime Minister believed that that was of such significance that it formed a new constitutional structure for the European Union. He came to this House and said as much on 20 April 2004, when he made his position clear about the need for the British people to vote on the constitutional treaty.

Graham Stuart: The right hon. Gentleman makes a persuasive case, but will he accept that he has failed to persuade the British people? In all the polls and other evidence that we have, the British people remain overwhelmingly of the belief that this treaty should be subject to a referendum.

Stephen Byers: The people have not yet had the opportunity to hear my argument. When they have, we might see a shift in public opinion. I shall await that with eager anticipation.

William Cash: I cannot remember whether the right hon. Gentleman was at the heart of Government when the decision that he mentions was taken by the then Prime Minister, but I understand—I have heard this from several sources—that the then Foreign Secretary and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is of course now Prime Minister, effectively forced the then Prime Minister into accepting a referendum on the grounds that the constitutional treaty had real implications for the sovereignty of this country and for voters. However, the European Scrutiny Committee has said that this treaty is substantially equivalent to the constitutional treaty. Does that not mean that this treaty should be subject to a referendum?

Stephen Byers: My second point is about the differences between the constitutional treaty and the Lisbon treaty.

Jim Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that more needs to be done to explain the treaty to the British people? So far, the Eurosceptics have got away with blue murder in their interpretations of the treaty.

Stephen Byers: It is a failing of all the main political parties that we have not had the courage or the ambition to make the case to the British people that the European Union provides them with massive benefits. Those of us who have been in government can rightly be criticised for that failure over the years.

Michael Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman knows that many issues arise in general elections and that it is often difficult to concentrate on just one. If he is keen to sell the concept of Europe and how it is changing through these treaties to the British people, what better way to do so than in a referendum campaign?

Stephen Byers: I am trying to explain why the manifesto referred to just the new constitutional treaty, and why we are not therefore breaking a promise. There is a different argument, which I will come to later, about the merit or otherwise of a referendum on a range of issues, and the constitutional reasons for that have been articulated very well over the years by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who has explained why referendums are not the way forward in a representative democracy such as the UK.
	Let me go back to the debate about the manifesto commitment and to the point made by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). Without going into the details of what happened over Easter 2004, who said what and the outcome, as a result of those discussions the then Prime Minister came to this House on 20 April 2004 and made a commitment that there would be a vote of the British people on the new constitutional treaty, which was subsequently reflected in our 2005 manifesto.
	The point that many hon. Members fail to recognise is that the manifesto was absolutely clear and referred specifically to the new constitutional treaty. We made a commitment to have a vote on the new constitutional treaty, and we definitely meant that constitutional treaty. When we put those words in the manifesto, there was no doubt that we were referring to the new constitutional treaty, which was what we had in mind when we included those words in our manifesto. We did not have in mind the Lisbon treaty.

Peter Bone: rose—

Julian Lewis: rose—

Stephen Byers: I have a choice; both hon. Members are very Eurosceptic, so I am not getting a balance. I shall take the intervention from the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone).

Peter Bone: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument, but I have the text of the 2005 Labour party manifesto. The argument for the referendum was made not because it was a constitution, but because of what the constitution did. The manifesto states:
	"The Treaty sets out what the EU can do and what it cannot."
	It then lists the very things that the Lisbon treaty will allow the EU to do. Is the right hon. Gentleman's argument slightly off, because it does not seem to agree with the manifesto?

Stephen Byers: As I had a role in putting together the manifesto, I am clear about what it said. I think that the words that I have used clearly reflect the manifesto. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) has a copy in front of him, and he might clarify the situation.

Gerald Kaufman: The manifesto is very clear. It states that we will put the
	"new Constitutional Treaty...to the British people in a referendum and campaign whole-heartedly for a 'Yes' vote to keep Britain a leading nation in Europe."
	The reference to that treaty was specific. The manifesto also specifically stated that the Labour party would not split, as it did in 1975, and that the whole party—everybody who signed up to the manifesto—was committed to campaigning for the constitutional treaty in a referendum.

Stephen Byers: My right hon. Friend makes the point about what was said in the manifesto very well. It contained a clear and specific reference not to any European treaty but to the new constitutional treaty. The House and the British public need to be aware of that.

Julian Lewis: Let us focus closely on that specific point. I am happy to concede that it is clear that the Lisbon treaty and the previous constitutional treaty are two different documents. If he is arguing on the narrow point that a manifesto commitment to a referendum on document A does not bind the Labour party to a referendum on document B—and if he is stopping at that—he has a logically consistent case, but why did the British people think that he was giving that commitment? Did they think that he was giving that commitment on the individual document or on its substance? If the contents of document B are the same as those of document A, the British people are entitled to think that he is breaking his promise if he does not give them a referendum.

Stephen Byers: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's concession, but the manifesto and our promise to the British people were absolutely clear. The manifesto specifically mentions a definitive treaty—the new constitutional treaty—and not any old treaty. I accept the criticism that we may not have adequately explained the distinctions between the two to the British public. All of us who have campaigned politically must bear that responsibility, and perhaps we need to do more about it.

Denis MacShane: Was my right hon. Friend in the House when the then shadow Foreign Secretary, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), stood up after the French and the Dutch had killed the treaty and said, "I'm a doctor; I know death when I see it. The constitution is dead, Mr. Speaker." I agreed with him. The Conservative party now wants to do a political Lazarus act: it wants to bring back to life that which it has declared dead to fight a battle that was won and lost in 2005.

Stephen Byers: I agree with my right hon. Friend. I was not in the House to hear the then shadow Foreign Secretary accurately articulate the position. To go beyond our manifesto commitment, the constitutional treaty was, of course, killed off by the votes in France and Holland at the end of May and beginning of June 2005. There was an attempt to resurrect the constitutional treaty. Some talked about returning to the French or the Dutch to try to get a positive vote in favour of the European constitutional treaty, as it then was. I recommend to the House a piece that I wrote for  The Times at the beginning of June 2005, which said that no meant no and that the constitution was dead as a result of the decisions made by people in France and Holland.

Denis MacShane: Circulate it.

Stephen Byers: I shall, with pleasure, for a small commission.

Iain Duncan Smith: I do not mean to detain the right hon. Gentleman for any length of time. May I take him back to the point about the manifesto, because the debate runs around it? The truth is that the manifesto is wonderfully general, and the words used are intriguing—they prompt some questions. The manifesto states:
	"The new Constitutional Treaty ensures the new Europe can work effectively, and that Britain keeps control of key national interests like foreign policy, taxation, social security and defence. The Treaty sets out what the EU can do and what it cannot."
	That is exactly what the Government say about the treaty of Lisbon, and it is no different from the way in which they sold the constitutional treaty in 2005. There is therefore no reason why they should not vote for a referendum.

Stephen Byers: Yet again, I must disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. The promise for a referendum referred to the new constitutional treaty, and we can then discuss what people believed that it stood for and so on. However, the promise concerned the new constitutional treaty, which, as we have heard, was voted down by voters in France and Holland and an attempt to resurrect it was effectively killed off. When we took over the EU presidency in July 2005, we had a period of reflection and, to everybody's benefit, we managed to shift from the concept of a constitutional treaty to considering a measure that is far more modest in its effect—the Lisbon treaty. There was a period of reflection, and the view was taken that perhaps too much power was being given to the EU and that it was far better to get consensus from nation states, which the Lisbon treaty now reflects. That was the background to the manifesto pledge, and the commitment was to a vote on the new constitutional treaty.
	There are many differences between what was discussed in 2004-05 and what we have as a result of the Lisbon treaty. The Foreign Secretary has taken us through some of the major differences in content. I was interested to hear the shadow Foreign Secretary on the radio this morning. It is unfortunate that he is not in his place, because he came up with the totally illogical argument that a referendum was needed not because of content but because of some great principle that there should be a vote. He failed to address the substantive differences between the constitutional treaty and the treaty of Lisbon, but he knows that they are major and significant. He is looking for an argument to escape from the difficult position he would be in if he had to compare the content of the two treaties.

Graham Stuart: Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that after the rejection of the constitutional treaty by voters in France and Holland Governments produced a document that would achieve pretty much the same things? They made what they felt were sufficient changes to deny that it is fundamentally the same. Will he not accept that this treaty is intended fundamentally to do the same job as the constitutional treaty, and that changes have been made cynically to avoid giving the people a say, not only in this country but in others across Europe?

Stephen Byers: No, I do not agree with that. Interestingly, there are different constitutional situations in different countries. My understanding is that nine countries planned to hold referendums on the old constitutional treaty, of which one was the United Kingdom. Because it was regarded as a constitutional matter, not just a political decision, many countries were legally obliged to do so. Because the Lisbon treaty is so different, there is no need to have referendums in most of those countries—I think that Ireland is the exception.
	The view taken by the Dutch Council of State—an independent body that advises the Dutch Government on the steps that they must take to ratify treaties—is particularly instructive and helpful. It is a constitutional requirement that there must be a referendum on a constitutional matter, and that body advises the Dutch Government on particular measures. Its conclusion on the constitutional treaty in 2004 was that it had to be put to a referendum, because it would change the Dutch constitution. Its conclusion on the Lisbon treaty was quite different, stating that it
	"provides no arguments for the gradual expansion of the EU towards a more explicit state or federation. The treaty is substantially different from the treaty establishing a constitution for Europe."
	So there was a significant difference in the view and recommendations of the independent Dutch Council of State. There is clearly a difference between the two treaties, which is why eight of the nine countries that originally planned a referendum no longer do.
	The treaty of Lisbon contains a modest set of proposals that will provide a stable framework to allow EU expansion to be more effective. The differences between it and the constitutional treaty are major and significant. The Foreign Secretary took us through a few of them, and, although I do not wish to detain the Committee by going through a long list, we should be prepared to recognise them.

Mark Hendrick: Have not the Opposition chosen not to recognise those differences because they wish to kill the treaty? The fact that they do not have the numbers in Committee to kill it means that calling for a referendum is their last resort.

Stephen Byers: I agree absolutely. That is the hidden motive behind the Conservative party's position. The 11 days of debate have shown the extent to which it remains divided on Europe and that a large number of Conservative Members want this country to leave the EU.

Malcolm Bruce: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Stephen Byers: I will, but this will probably be the last time.

Malcolm Bruce: I am grateful. Is not the situation worse than the right hon. Gentleman says? The Conservative party is suggesting that, if the treaty were ratified, functioning and operational, and there were a change of Government in this country in two years' time—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] They say "Hear, hear", but they would disrupt the workings of 27 member states and effectively terminate Britain's constructive engagement in Europe.

Stephen Byers: That is a helpful intervention, and the response of Conservative Members says it all. The Conservative party has no time for the whole concept of the EU, and it is turning its back on the EU just at the time when we probably need it more than ever, because of what is happening in the world in general. As I have said, I shall not go through the detail of the changes in the treaty, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did that very well.
	My final point concerns the responsibility of Members of this House. I have no doubt that, because of my speech today and the way in which I will cast my vote this evening in the Division, I will lose votes in my constituency. Some people will not vote for me at the next general election because of the position that I am taking. That is part of the democratic process and a representative democracy, and I am prepared to accept it. I will make the case as best I can, but I recognise that in a democracy, we take decisions in the House and take responsibility for them.

Graham Brady: Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that at the last election, given the manifesto pledge on which he stood, people who felt strongly on the European issue would have felt that they could still vote for him? They were materially misled and are not being represented as they would wish.

Stephen Byers: Clearly the hon. Gentleman was not listening to the points that I made earlier. I hope that my constituents will pay me a bit more attention than he has. We made the promise in relation to the new constitutional treaty, which is no longer in place, and we shall see whether people are prepared to accept that. The hon. Gentleman confirms my point about the nature of our democratic accountability as Members of Parliament. I do not think that every single issue must be subject to a referendum, because referendums can be an excuse to hide divisions in political parties.
	I agree very much with the point that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) made last year:
	"It always was crackpot to argue that it was transferring great powers to Brussels and there's an important constitutional change. It doesn't justify a referendum and it never did."
	I agree absolutely with that statement of the position. We need to take a decision here in Committee and be accountable for so doing.
	The debate has shown the divisions in the Conservative party and, more importantly, the failure of its leader to bring it into the centre ground of British politics. He is a hostage to his Eurosceptics, and it is interesting to see that the hostility towards Europe in the Conservative party is still so powerful that a new leader, who is trying to remodel and reposition the party, has totally failed to do so on Europe. As time goes by, the other policy areas on which he has failed to move the party will be revealed.
	We need Europe more than ever at this time of globalisation and rising protectionism, which we are seeing in the American presidential debates. We need measures to tackle climate change and deal with mass migration, and we need a functioning and effective EU to meet those challenges. Now is not the time to walk off the stage; it is the time to be at the heart of Europe arguing for our national interests. That is what Labour Members intend to do, and that is why the treaty should be ratified by this House.

Michael Ancram: I am grateful for the chance to take part in the debate. I had hoped to speak about the referendum on Second Reading, but unfortunately I was suffering from flu and had no voice that day, so I had to leave my comments until today.
	The debate on the amendment will be remembered most for the impressive sight of the Liberal Democrat party marching with sound and fury courageously towards the fence on which it has been ordered to perch tonight. The other thing that has struck me during the debates on the Bill is the backcloth of the Labour strategy towards Europe; it is based on the extraordinary belief that if they do not allow the British people the chance to express through a referendum their growing doubts about the European Union they will somehow come to love the European Union. That is gravely to underestimate the British people.
	We are told that a referendum is not needed because the treaty does not, in effect, do very much. That has been the main argument. It was even the argument when we were talking about the constitutional treaty: we were told that it, too, did not do very much. However, even if that were true, which it is not, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary impressively indicated earlier, it takes only a small step to walk through a doorway into another room; it takes only a small step to cross a dividing line. I believe that the treaty is the latest and the most significant step down the road of ever-closer union to the project of a united Europe which is at the heart of the policies of so many other Governments in Europe.
	We fool ourselves if we believe that somehow the treaty is not actually taking us one step further down that road, yet the British people have never been allowed to say whether they want to go down that road. Each step—each of the recent treaties—has been described in the House as insignificant, as not doing very much, but each, like grandmother's footsteps, edges us closer and closer towards the goal of a united Europe.
	My growing disillusion with the way in which Europe is developing is shared by many others in the UK who, like me, did not start out as Eurosceptics. I supported the Common Market in the first and only referendum but, over recent years, my Euro-friendliness has been increasingly tested by a series of treaties, each incrementally diminishing the sovereignty of this Parliament and, therefore, of the British people without the British people ever being asked whether they wanted that to happen.

Christopher Huhne: I am intrigued by the argument that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is developing, but what is his response to the facts? He is talking about a federal superstate, but the entire professional staff of all the European Union institutions is smaller than the staff of Hampshire county council. Will he also respond to the point that on average 40 per cent. of gross domestic product goes on public spending, yet the European institutions spend only 1 per cent. of GDP? Where does the paranoid delusion that he is attempting to articulate come from?

Michael Ancram: I am not talking about the bureaucracy of the European Union, but about the wishes of the British people. That is, in essence, what the debate is about. The Europe achieved by the treaty of Lisbon is unacceptable to the British people; it crosses the dividing line. However big or small a step it is, we are moving into a new Europe where, as we have already heard, we will have a president, a foreign secretary, diplomats and all the trappings of what so many of the Europhiles in Europe want—the beginnings of a European state.
	If I am wrong about the treaty being unacceptable, why do the Government not ask the British people whether they believe it is unacceptable? If I am right—as I have every reason to believe that I am—the Government have no mandate to force through the treaty without any form of consultation with the British people, either in a general election or a referendum.

David Howarth: I, too, am intrigued by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. If he is saying that all the other countries in Europe are moving along a federalist path and he wants to stop moving in that direction, does that not imply not just voting no to the treaty but withdrawal from the EU?

Michael Ancram: I shall deal with that point later. I believe that the European Union as currently constituted is unacceptable. That is not a new view of mine; I expressed it many times from the Dispatch Box when I was shadow Foreign Secretary. At the last election, I stood on a manifesto that called for renegotiation to create a more flexible Europe, and I still believe that that is what we should do.
	Refusing the British people a referendum will not diminish their doubts about the Europe that is being imposed on them, it will strengthen them and, paradoxically, it will increase Euroscepticism in the UK.

Patricia Hewitt: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way, especially as I was unable to be in the Chamber for the earlier part of the proceedings. I am interested in his repetition of his view that there should be renegotiation not only of the treaty but of Britain's terms of membership. Would he care to name the parties and Governments in the rest of the EU who share his view, and would be interested in entering into such a renegotiation?

Michael Ancram: I am putting forward my view and I shall explain why in a moment. As we get nearer to an election, my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary may put more flesh on the bones of what he has described as not letting things rest where they are.

Iain Duncan Smith: I apologise to my right hon. and learned Friend for delaying him, but the question was ridiculous. It provokes two points. First, what would be the point of being elected to this place if we always felt scared that we might be a lone voice, even if we believed passionately in something? There would be an end to democracy. Secondly, in Holland and France a majority of people rejected the constitutional treaty. How alone is that?

Michael Ancram: I wholly agree with my right hon. Friend. Our point is that, to talk in the terms used by Labour Members, the debate ignores the views of the British people. I give this serious warning: if we continue to ignore the views of the British people as we advance down the road towards what in Europe is euphemistically called "the project", the British people will become angrier and angrier about the decisions that emanate from Europe and Euroscepticism will become stronger.

Mark Hendrick: The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about the sovereignty of this place, yet he wants to give power to make decisions about whether we accept the treaty to the citizens of the UK—to back-heel it. Sovereignty is either with the House or the people.

Michael Ancram: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman thought he was doing when he fought the last election, when he was asking the British people to support him.

Chris Bryant: rose—

David Chaytor: rose—

Michael Ancram: I want to make some progress.
	What would be the consequences of not holding a referendum? The question what would happen if there were a referendum and the vote was no has been asked a lot. The answer to that is that the provisions of the treaty would not apply across Europe as a whole. The status quo would be maintained. I would regard that as unacceptable, but a no vote would not change the situation; it would leave the European Union where it is at present. However, if we do not have a referendum and the treaty is implemented, creating a Europe that is unacceptable, the only option for changing that situation would be renegotiation. The failure to hold a referendum now would strengthen the moral right of the British to ask for renegotiation to create and secure a more acceptable Europe. We do not have to do that aggressively—I have always been someone who believes that reform rather than confrontation is the right way in Europe—but the treaty will create a running sore, not just in the UK but in other parts of Europe, which can be dealt with only by renegotiation.

Chris Bryant: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not accept the basic political facts of life? It takes two to tango and 27 to renegotiate, otherwise he is arguing for leaving the European Union—whether he says it in a loud voice or, like the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), in a quiet voice.

Michael Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is arguing that even if we in Britain feel that the Europe we are in is wrong, or getting worse, unless other people in Europe are with us we have no choice but to continue down the road to a European state. I do not accept that argument and I do not think the British people will either. If we cannot find partners and secure renegotiation, we have to look seriously at asking to renegotiate our status within the European Union because the European Union will have left us with no option. If Europe still rejects that, we may have to ask ourselves seriously what we are doing in a Europe that is grinding inexorably towards something that we know our country would not live with. I hope that we never reach that point, but the inexorable advance of an ever-closer Union—without the British people's consent, as given in a referendum—has driven me and many others to recognise the possibility. The Government should make no mistake: it is their arrogant refusal to give the British people their promised referendum on the treaty that opens up that scenario.
	The Bill treats the British people with contempt. The amendment would at least allow the British people to say what they want to say about what the Bill is trying to do. If the amendment fails tonight, the Government, paradoxically, will have unleashed political energies that could eventually lead to the unbundling of the European Union.

Ian Davidson: Many of the questions associated with the treaty are immensely complicated, but at their core is the simple issue of whether we keep the promise that we made at the general election to hold a referendum.
	I remember the timing of the decision to have a referendum well, because I regarded it as a great success at the time. It is worth while reminding the House that the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, announced a referendum in the House of Commons on 20 April, before a decision had been reached on what the constitutional treaty was to be. It is not the case that once the constitutional treaty had been produced and examined, the Prime Minister said, "This is so important that we need to have a referendum." The referendum was announced before the constitutional treaty had been produced in its final form. As was suggested earlier, that clearly indicates that the decision was taken in order to clear the air. The decision to have a referendum did not depend on the detail of the wording, but on the general principles that were being advanced.

Christopher Huhne: On the referendum on the constitution, it is material that the constitutional form was already determined. The details might have been up for negotiation, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but the constitutional form of the treaty was already clear.

Ian Davidson: Ah, yes; the consolidation argument, which states that if a variety of treaties are brought together in one document, it is entirely different from making amendments to existing documents, even though the two processes achieve exactly the same objective. My view is that the new treaty contains essentially the same substance as the original constitution, and that the commitment that we made ought still to be honoured.

James Clappison: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) seems to know more about what is going on in Europe than the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett) did, because she came before the European Scrutiny Committee at the beginning of June and said that there had been no negotiations or discussions—nothing at all—and that there was no point in coming before the Committee as nothing had been decided.

Ian Davidson: I have nothing to add to that.

Iain Duncan Smith: May I take the hon. Gentleman back to a point that I made to the Foreign Secretary, who gave an evasive answer? It concerned a letter from Angela Merkel to the Heads of State of all the principal negotiators. Having discussed with them, in negotiations, what they wanted, she asked them, in her question 1:
	"How do you assess the proposal made by some Member States not to repeal the existing treaties but to return to the classical method of treaty changes while preserving the single legal personality and overcoming the pillar structure of the EU?"
	That is the hon. Gentleman's case exactly; they are one and the same process.

Ian Davidson: Let me take a step back to what I was saying. Tony Blair, the then "dear leader", made the announcement on 20 April. Why did we make the announcement then? The answer is simple and straightforward: because we wanted to park the issue out of the way in the run-up to the general election. We wanted to have the referendum after the general election, so that the forces of darkness on the other side of the Chamber would not have that weapon to beat us with during the general election. I welcomed that; I saw it as a great advantage to us, as it prevented us from giving the forces of darkness a weapon that they would have used against us. I was also strongly in favour of a referendum.
	Let us be absolutely clear that it was not the case that the Prime Minister agreed to have a referendum on the basis of detailed knowledge of the exact wording of the constitution. It was an evasive tactic, which I am glad to say was successful, and we went on to win the general election. From that arose the commitment in our manifesto. I am glad to say that I have my copy of that little red book with me today. Unlike some hon. Friends on the Labour Benches, I was never a Maoist or a Trotskyist, so it is the only little red book that I have. People can usually spot the former Maoists and Trotskyists, because they become the most extreme exponents of new Labour.

Stephen Byers: As someone who had a part to play in drawing up the little red book for the 2005 election, I hope that my hon. Friend will refer to the clear commitment given in May 2005, before the general election, about the new constitutional treaty. At that stage, we knew exactly what the new constitutional treaty was. He is right to say that in April 2004 that was not so, but by the time of the manifesto, we knew precisely what the new constitutional treaty was, and that is what we referred to in the 2005 manifesto.

Ian Davidson: I am grateful to Comrade Zhou for raising that point, but it is important to accept the context in which the exact wording was written. Let us remember why we did what we did. The Prime Minister made a statement indicating that there would be a referendum on whatever appeared in the document, in order to park the issue before the general election. When the document appeared, of course the party said, "This is the document on which we will have a referendum." The Prime Minister could hardly say "We'll have a referendum" on 20 April, and then say, once he saw the document, "No, we will not have a referendum." Of course the one followed on from the other. He would have said that there would be a referendum, and the manifesto would have reflected that we were going to have a referendum on the document, whatever was in the document. It is not fair or true to say that a referendum would have been ruled out, had the current document been produced at the time.

Mike Gapes: The hon. Member said that he was in favour of a referendum. [Hon. Members: "Hon. Friend."] Yes, he is my long-standing friend, and we fought Trotskyists together 30 years ago. Given what he said about his support for a referendum, can he tell us whether he has always been in favour of having a referendum on European treaties, including in 1992, when he was first elected, and on the Nice and Amsterdam treaties?

Ian Davidson: I cannot remember whether I have been in favour of a referendum on every European treaty, but I was certainly in favour of one on the Maastricht treaty. On that occasion, I was in a minority in my party, as I am now, but the difference then was that the Government, not having made a commitment to a referendum, were not obliged and honour-bound to have one, unlike us; we are so obliged. I voted for a referendum on Maastricht, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to bring that up, but the situation then was different, because that Government did not make a commitment to having a referendum. We did.
	I have heard many arguments against referendums, and many people regret the commitment that we made at that time, but regretting the commitment is not the same thing as saying that we did not make it. I understand the point about repenting at leisure, and I believe many people are doing so, but let us remember why we entered into the commitment in the first place. It was for base electoral reasons, and I am glad we did so. None the less, we must honour the commitment that we made.

Gerald Kaufman: If my hon. Friend says that he was bound by the manifesto commitment in the 2005 manifesto, will he clarify that he was bound by the whole of the manifesto commitment, which stated that the Labour party would
	"campaign whole-heartedly for a 'Yes' vote"
	in that referendum? Is not the only Member of the House of Commons who was elected on the Labour ticket but not bound by the Labour manifesto the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), once our right hon. Friend, who said that she was elected to the House on her own personal manifesto, and who suffered the biggest anti-Labour swing in the whole general election?

Ian Davidson: I confess that although I had a substantial personal vote, it did not single-handedly elect me to the House. There is a commitment in a manifesto from a Government on how they will take matters forward. Clearly, as the document is always a compromise between competing interests, some will be less than totally enthusiastic about elements of it. I forget which ones I was less than totally enthusiastic about.  [Interruption.] The referendum may well have been one of them.
	I return to the question whether the treaty is the same document as the constitution. Much of the discussion about that is a little like the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I take the view that we gave a commitment to hold a referendum only on that constitutional form. As I indicated, I believe that we made a clear commitment to have a referendum on what was produced at the end of the day.
	We should ask ourselves whether promises matter to people. In my constituency I suffer, as I am sure many other hon. Members do, from a pervasive cynicism about politicians in general—not about me, because most constituents think their own MP is okay; it is the other lot that they do not like. There is an assumption that politicians and parties cannot be trusted and that we will say anything to get elected. That is not constructive or helpful, particularly to those of us on the left, because we depend on popular support to put forward a programme that seizes some of the instruments of power and changes society in the way that we want. It is necessary for us to command popular support in a way that is not quite so necessary for others.
	Abandoning our proposal for a referendum because of nuanced differences and because somebody is prepared to argue that this does not mean exactly the same as that, gives out entirely the wrong message and confirms the view that we collectively, as a political class, cannot be trusted. Let us be truthful. One of the real reasons why we are not having a referendum in Britain and why the elites of Europe are not having referendums in their own countries is that they do not have confidence in the people producing the right result.
	If there was, for a moment, a feeling among those on the Government Benches that if they went for a referendum, they would win it, they would be off to a referendum like a shot. Let us not forget, for example, that Portugal wanted to hold a referendum on the treaty to demonstrate how committed it was to the European ideal, but Portugal was persuaded out of that view by the French and the British, in particular, leaning on them, saying, "If you do that, it would set a precedent that would cause us enormous difficulties because we can't carry our people with us in a referendum. Therefore you should not allow your people to have a vote on the question." That changes somewhat the implication that the treaty is so trivial that nobody in their right mind in Europe would want a referendum. The situation has been rigged to some extent by the pressure put on smaller countries not to have referendums that would be inconvenient to their colleagues.
	Let me deal with what happened when the constitution was discussed and debated in France and Holland. I am happy to say that I played my part in those defeats. I was across in France speaking at French Socialist party rallies and meetings on the constitution. I spoke partly in French, but I was applauded entirely in English in order that I could understand what was being said. It was an international gathering where speaker after speaker from other countries stood up and said to the French,
	"Do not believe that you who are against the constitution in France are alone in Europe."
	Throughout Europe, in every country where doubts were expressed—this tended to happen more in the smaller countries, such as Holland, Denmark and Ireland—the people expressing those doubts were told, "You're the only ones who object to the constitution. If you go against it, you will be isolated. You might very well be expelled. It will be the end of civilisation as we know it. The money will cease to come from the European Union." All of that was untrue. Members will remember what happened when France and Holland rejected the proposals. They did not get expelled, and nor would we. There was not an enormous crisis in the European Union which brought the payments, the fraud and so on to an end. It carried on pretty much as before, with a period of discussion, then a period of reflection.
	A period of reflection would be expected to allow the elites to think about where they had gone wrong, whether they ought to choose a different path and what that path should be. Indeed, some of that happened. They thought about where they had gone wrong, but they identified that as a problem of presentation. They came back with exactly the same thing in a slightly different form, but the valuable lesson that they had learned was not to make the mistake of asking their peoples what they thought of it this time round. That is where we are. Whenever there has been the opportunity to do so, the elites of Europe have managed to avoid giving the peoples of Europe any opportunity to discuss whether they should accept the treaty.
	Let me turn to the Liberals, more in sorrow, if I may say so, than anything else. How does it happen that such a once proud party is reduced to this? One thinks back to the great principles that they stood for on occasion, and how they contributed to debates, even though sometimes they were a pain in the neck and other parts of the anatomy. Nevertheless, they are now in a position whereby, on the great issue of the day, they walk out or abstain. I can understand how they were bullied into it by the threat of Shirley Williams and others leaving them if they were prepared to countenance a referendum.
	Let us be clear: some Liberal lords are prepared to fight to the last drop of Liberal blood to maintain their position. Greater love hath no MP than this, that he lay down his seat for their lordships. The Liberals in the House of Commons are prepared to lose parliamentary seats simply to keep Shirley Williams happy. I have not come across a single Liberal who believes that the policy is popular or that much of it is understood by the electorate.

Christopher Huhne: rose—

Ian Davidson: Is this a leadership bid?

Christopher Huhne: It is not, but I was listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's pick-and-mix attitude to the Labour party manifesto. Perhaps he missed my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) pointing out that polling evidence shows that our policy is more popular than any other on referendums. Indeed, it is twice as popular, not only with Liberal Democrats but with the whole of the public. If the hon. Gentleman wants a popular referendum, he should go for the in/out referendum, not his half-baked one.

Ian Davidson: If I remember correctly, the Liberals' poll posed the question, "Would you prefer this referendum to that one?" My proposal allows them the possibility, albeit a narrow one, of posing both questions—

David Howarth: rose—

Ian Davidson: Let me finish with the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) first.

David Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Davidson: I will, but not immediately. I want to answer one point before moving to another.
	I believe that the Liberal Democrats are being deliberately evasive about not reaching a decision on a yes/no referendum, and wanting to pose the question in terms of in or out. It is a bit like answering the question, "Are you a man or a mouse?" with, "I am a hamster." It is a deliberate distortion of the options available. Where does the Liberal party stand on yes/no? If we agree to hold a referendum, what will the Liberals do in the country? Will they advise their supporters simply to abstain?

Christopher Huhne: rose—

Ian Davidson: I am finishing with the hon. Gentleman's first point.
	Many of us know that the Liberals have a policy—it is almost a principle—of saying one thing in one part of the country and a different thing in another. Will they say one thing in one part of this building and another in the other part? Will the Liberal lords be whipped into abstaining, too, or will they have a free hand? If the latter, proceedings in the Lords will be interesting.

David Howarth: I thank the hon. Gentleman for at last getting on to new clause 18, which is odd—perhaps the most bizarre amendment ever tabled. It would allow the Government to change the question in a referendum to almost anything. How does he suggest that the Government might change it? The new clause would allow them to ask, "Is the moon made of green cheese?" Secondly, it would provide for a supplementary question. What chance is there of a Government, who yesterday led their troops through the Lobby to deny the House even the possibility of discussing an in/out referendum, ordering an in/out referendum subsequent to new clause 18 being accepted? Surely new clause 18 is either pointless or useless.

Ian Davidson: That was a fine speech. If the hon. Gentleman believes that new clause 18 is the weirdest amendment he has ever seen, he has not been here very long and he clearly does not read many Liberal amendments. Indeed, if I remember correctly, "Is the moon made of green cheese?" appeared in a Liberal "Focus" leaflet. The supplementary question was, "If not, would you wish it to be so?" That is an example of a relevant second question.

David Howarth: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman thinks so. That is precisely the sort of question that new clause 18 would allow to be asked in a referendum. Does not that make it absurd?

Ian Davidson: I am never entirely sure whether the Liberal Democrats are quite as silly as they pretend— [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman raised a point with me; he might at least do me the courtesy of listening to my reply. My intention is to reach out to the Liberal Democrats and be helpful. It is clear that they want an in/out question. My new clause is the only way to achieve that; it is the only option on offer that gives any possibility of that question being asked— [Interruption.] Let me complete the point. I am strongly in favour of a yes/no question being asked. I am prepared to concede that, if there is sufficient public pressure, we should have an in/out question as well. Only the Liberal Democrats and the UK Independence party want that, but none the less I would be prepared to vote for it, and I did.
	However, the responsibility for garnering public support for the idea ought to be with the Liberal Democrats. I have left open the possibility of introducing an in/out question if the Liberal Democrats managed to persuade the Government of that—as I and others managed to persuade our dear leader on 20 April 2004 to accept a referendum on Europe. The policy had been entirely against a referendum, and huge numbers of my colleagues were against it—until the policy changed, when huge numbers of them were in favour. Indeed, I could not find any who had ever been against it.

Chris Bryant: No, no, no—that is not fair.

Ian Davidson: That was then, if I may remind my hon. Friend; he was not quite the rebel then that he is now.
	My new clause offers the Liberal Democrats their only opportunity. If they are genuine about wanting an opportunity to have that second question, as distinct from playing games, they will have to vote for my new clause.

Matthew Taylor: To avoid playing games, will the hon. Gentleman explain something to the Liberal Democrats? If he, as a Labour Member, cannot persuade the Government to deliver the referendum that he wants—or, indeed, an in/out referendum, which he says he also supports—how does he think the Liberal Democrats would persuade a Labour Prime Minister?

Ian Davidson: I dare say that I will get a great deal closer than the Liberal Democrats did yesterday. I fail to understand how the Government could be frightened by the Liberal Democrats who are abstaining. If they want to start persuading the Government about anything, threatening them with an abstention is not the best way to send shivers down their back—"Ooh! The Liberal Democrats are going to abstain! Oh my God!"

Graham Brady: As ever, the hon. Gentleman's speech is entertaining; it may also be having a remarkable impact. Is he aware that the press are now reporting outside this place that three Liberal Democrat Front Benchers have already resigned since he started speaking?

Hon. Members: More!

Ian Davidson: I thank hon. Members for cheering in European. That is what—three in 24 minutes? Sir Alan, how long have I got? I apologise to colleagues who might not be allowed to speak at all, given the circumstances.
	The question is actually a serious one. If the Liberal Democrats find themselves unable to support the new clause drawn up to help them, will they guide us on something that I am sure we all want to know? If my new clause is successful, what will they do in the yes/no referendum? Will they simply sit on their hands throughout?

Christopher Huhne: As we have made abundantly clear, and as the hon. Gentleman knows very well, we are very much in favour of our membership of the European Union and that is what we would argue in any yes/no referendum.

Ian Davidson: In that case, why do the Liberal Democrats not have the courage of their convictions and vote against a referendum? Why do they not get off the fence, let voters in their constituencies know where they stand and take the results? The right hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mr. Byers) said that he was prepared to lose votes as a result of his position on this matter, which is a great deal easier for him to do, with a majority of 17 million, than it is for many of the Liberals who have very small majorities, but if people have the courage of their convictions, they should have no difficulty in doing that.

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend is asking how the Liberal Democrats would vote if there were a referendum, but as the main tenor of his argument has been that our manifesto committed us to a referendum and to arguing for a yes vote, he should, in all honesty, be standing before this Committee saying that he would argue for a yes vote in such a referendum—unless he wants his voters not to take his word at face value.

Ian Davidson: My hon. Friend underestimates me. In a leaflet, I made it absolutely clear to my electorate where I stood on this question. I cannot remember the exact words—I carry the little red book with me, but I do not have my election leaflets with me at all times. I would be happy to send him a signed copy, which he can put in a frame and deal with as he wishes. I made my position on the European Union clear. Let me move on, if I can, and draw my remarks to a close—

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend appears to be explaining to the House that he has a personal opt-out from the 2005 manifesto. If that is the case, does he not accept that one of the many reasons why the treaty is not a treaty providing for a constitution, on which we did indeed promise a referendum, is precisely that we have secured opt-outs from several of its provisions, and that several of its other provisions are wholly different from the provisions in the constitutional treaty?

Ian Davidson: I am grateful for that intervention from the Member for Boots. When I heard that a Member from Leicester was to be the next European Commissioner, I thought of the former Europe Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), rather than herself.
	Let me be clear about the question of a personal opt-out. Some of the opt-outs that we have achieved are better than what was there before. Some are improvements, and I welcome them. However, I have grave doubts about the extent to which they will remain outwith the control of the European Court of Justice. Many of the opt-outs that we have achieved will not stand up to sustained attack from the Court.

Julian Lewis: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a long tradition of Back Benchers being allowed to disagree with Front-Bench policy, and to stand in an election on a manifesto without signing up to every part of it? The Government, however, are going back on a commitment that they put in their own manifesto. Furthermore, is he not surprised that there appear to be two classes of Lib Dem Front Bencher? There are those in the Lib Dems' so-called inner shadow Cabinet, who apparently have to resign from their positions if they want to keep their promise to have a referendum, but other Front-Bench Lib Dem spokesmen of a more junior variety are apparently being allowed to keep their positions even if they vote for a referendum.

Alan Haselhurst: Order. I have been very indulgent over the length of interventions, and sometimes their content, this afternoon. We should get back on the straight and narrow, and I also suggest that the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson) keep an eye on his parliamentary language. He has been going for 33 minutes now; as we have not had any other reports from outside— [ Laughter. ] —he should remember that many other colleagues wish to contribute.

Ian Davidson: I was hopeful that more news would come from the front. I always thought that being a Liberal Front-Bench spokesman was somewhat akin to being a eunuch in a harem—singularly decorative, but not particularly useful.
	I draw my remarks to a close by saying that the confusion on the question of whether the constitution is the same thing as the treaty is not only confined to the general public. Indeed, I am grateful to have a copy of the agenda for the most recent executive meeting of the Labour Movement for Europe, on 25 February 2008, item four of which refers to
	"Progress of EU Treaty on EU Constitution".
	The agenda refers clearly to the constitution, while the minutes of the meeting indicate not only that the LME was instructed to use the words "reform treaty" not "constitution"—it was obviously making a mistake in that regard—but that a decision was made to
	"speak to David Miliband, to see what role the LME could play".
	It is a help that the LME keeps sending me its material, but if even it is confused about whether the treaty and the constitution are the same thing, the general public can be forgiven for being confused.

Chris Bryant: rose—

Ian Davidson: I give way to one of my less confused colleagues.

Chris Bryant: When my hon. Friend and I were playing in the parliamentary rugby team in Paris last September, I remember that he said that he thought that 122 Labour rebels would be voting with him tonight. What is his prediction now?

Ian Davidson: Yes, I remember that tour, too. I remember a number of things that my hon. Friend said, but I have always taken the view that what goes on tour stays on tour.

Chris Bryant: Many of the things that went on during that tour will stay on tour, but my hon. Friend went on telly from Paris to state all that.

The Chairman: Order. I do not want the debate on this amendment to go on tour, either.

Ian Davidson: I will refer no further to what happened on tour, although I should remind my hon. Friend that I still have the photographs.
	This debate comes back to the question of honesty in politics. I know that a lot of people bitterly regret that we made that promise, but make it we did. If we make a promise that was so explicit—it was on page 80 of the manifesto—

Graham Stringer: Page 84.

Ian Davidson: I thank my hon. Friend. However, the promise came after a major statement in the Commons by the then Prime Minister that totally changed party policy on a referendum and therefore had much greater significance than simply a couple of lines in the manifesto. If we want to stop the disillusionment with and cynicism about politics, we must recognise that the people out there expect us to keep our promises. That is why I believe that we on the Labour Benches are honour bound to abide by our commitment to a referendum.

Kenneth Clarke: There has only ever been one United Kingdom-wide referendum in this country. I had the pleasure of campaigning hard in that election and of finding myself on the winning side. I very much hope that we never have a second referendum, and I am rather appalled that I should be taking part in a debate so many years later in which people are pressing to have another UK-wide referendum.
	The precedent was a bad one. In my opinion, Harold Wilson called that referendum for totally cynical reasons, as is widely acknowledged on all sides. He was concerned about party management, almost regardless of which way the result would go. In the event, the pro-European side won quite easily—by a two-to-one majority, I recall—and the people who had demanded the referendum immediately reneged on their undertaking to abide by the result.
	A referendum was demanded in those days by the people who were the most numerous Eurosceptics—the ancestors of the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson). Benn and the left regarded the European Union as a capitalist plot, and the moment they took control of the Labour party in the early 1980s, they started campaigning for immediate withdrawal from the European Union, with no more referendums. The whole thing was a sad and cynical exercise, which fortunately did not do too much lasting damage.
	Over the years, the only advocates of referendums as an addition to our constitution whom I can think of—the landmark people—have been Tony Benn and Jimmy Goldsmith. Both of them represented Eurosceptic opinion, but until recently they were, comparatively speaking, voices in the wilderness.
	We do not have to go back too long to find a time when people in this House who really believed in the value of referendums were hard to find. Indeed, it was quite easy for them to be swept away. I served under three Prime Ministers: Ted Heath, Margaret Thatcher and John Major. I am glad to say that under each of them, we overruled demands for referendums—almost always on Europe—with the support of the mainstream of the Labour party. It was the accepted wisdom of parliamentarians that we were against them.
	I am astonished to find the atmosphere so completely changed now. In fact, it worries me that members of the political ruling class of this country have now lost their self-confidence and their ability to rely on their legitimacy as parliamentarians to such an extent that no one among them dares defy the media, the hard-line Eurosceptics or any other people who demand a referendum, because they find themselves faced with a parliamentary majority that they seek to overturn.

Mike Gapes: I very much agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It would be helpful to the House if I could quote the words of Baroness Thatcher. As far as I can recall, she quoted Clement Attlee describing a referendum as
	"a device of demagogues and dictators".
	Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree with that view?

Kenneth Clarke: I remember it. I cannot remember the precise words, but it is actually true. The origin of referendums lies with people such as Napoleon and Mussolini. They were populist people who wished to override their parliamentary institutions and to appeal to the people on carefully chosen issues.

William Cash: rose—

Kenneth Clarke: I do not want to get into the history of referendums with my hon. Friend. The history of our debates goes back long and far, and remains perfectly amicable, but neither of us is going to persuade the other. I should like to make some progress. I have made my general point, and there are few original arguments to be made on either side of it. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and I have made most of them in our time.
	Unusually, I find the official position of all three political parties quite bewildering. I do not envy their Front-Bench spokesmen. They have had considerable difficulty in putting forward their near-incomprehensible positions. The Conservatives are quite unable to explain how the treaty differs from Maastricht and the Single European Act, upon which we consistently refused a referendum.

Graham Stuart: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Kenneth Clarke: Let me deal with the other two parties as well. The Labour party is quite unable to explain sensibly why the treaty is so different from the constitution that it should now be released from the obligation that it entered into—for pre-electoral reasons, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West rightly said—to hold a referendum. I believe that those reasons were mixed up with Mr. Murdoch as much as with the electorate.
	On the Liberals' position, with great respect, I am sorry that I upset their spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), with whom I have usually agreed throughout these debates on the treaty. The fact is that he has drawn the short straw. He had to get up and explain why, having promised a referendum on the constitution, he thought that the treaty was so different that he was not going to vote on it at all. The position of all three parties is almost impossible to explain.

Stewart Jackson: I am listening with great interest to my right hon. and learned Friend's compelling analysis. Does he see a causal link between the lack of self-confidence in the House and the incidental accretion of power to the European Union, which he himself has supported so strongly over the past 30 years?

Kenneth Clarke: I have supported it; I believe that it has been in the British national interest. We have pooled our sovereignty with the European Union and I think that that has been overwhelmingly to our benefit. The treaty will develop the institutions of the European Union, which will make it easier to make decisions. We shall then be able to make better progress in areas that are particularly important to the United Kingdom, and get away from the tedious obsession with institutional reform, referendums—and all the rest of it—that has poisoned our politics for so long.

Gerald Howarth: I accept that my right hon. and learned Friend has shown great principle in his stand on these matters, but does he accept that as Members of Parliament we are trustees for the time being of the powers inherent in the British people? We hold those powers in trust. In the exceptional case in which we collectively decide that we wish to hand those powers that we hold in trust to another body outside our control, should we not seek the express consent of the British people? That express consent has not been given. What the British people have seen over the last 30 years is a transfer of power from this Parliament elsewhere. They have never been given a proper opportunity to have their say, yet at the general election they were promised a referendum, precisely on this transfer of power.

Kenneth Clarke: I disagree with my hon. Friend; he and I have never really seen entirely eye to eye on this issue. I do not believe that this treaty represents a massive further transfer of powers, and I can only refer my hon. Friend to earlier debates in which I have taken part and got involved in those arguments. I was actively involved at the British end of the Single European Act. I discussed the British position with the then Prime Minister as we tried to move towards the single market. That was a massive transfer of power—the biggest since the original European Communities Act 1972, when we openly talked about pooling our sovereignty, and stood at the election to defend that decision. The Single European Act was the context in which we went in for qualified majority voting on a grand scale, because it was in British interests to do so. That is where the passerelle provisions came in; they are a sensible way of dealing with routine matters without having to go through the whole rigmarole of having an intergovernmental conference and all the rest of it.
	There have been no new arguments in this debate. All the way through the debates on this treaty, I have been reminded either of Maastricht or of the Single European Act, the only difference being that even bigger issues were involved in the previous treaties than in this one— [Interruption.] I said that I would not go on about the merits much further—

David Heathcoat-Amory: rose—

Kenneth Clarke: If my right hon. Friend will forgive me, other hon. Members are waiting to contribute. I cannot give way all the time, and I am not going to give way even to my hon. Friends who agree with me, some of whom may also be trying to catch your eye, Sir Alan.
	Finally, let me deal with a question that really must be addressed: if we find that a referendum is carried, what happens then? That is relevant; the question cannot be avoided. It will change the course of history only if we get a no vote. That illustrates my objection to referendums. The trouble with introducing a referendum into a constitution, as Mussolini well understood, is that it renders Parliament powerless. In this case, it would also render the Government powerless.
	I happen to believe that good democratic Governments often have to take tough and unpopular decisions. They do not do that if they live by newspaper headlines and focus groups; indeed, that gets them into the mess that the present Government have got themselves into. Governments have to take unpopular decisions that the focus groups do not like—that is what Margaret Thatcher did—and then offer themselves for re-election to see if they can survive democratically when, some years later, people see the consequences of what has been done.
	Let us say that on this occasion we finish the parliamentary process, in which the majorities have been about two to one in favour of the treaty of Lisbon, and we then hold a referendum. Given that everyone I have so far met who is demanding a referendum actually intends to vote no, what do we do then?  [Interruption.] Someone says that we should carry on with the present treaty. The hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West addressed this question, but effectively tried to sweep it away. The fact is that everyone across western Europe is absolutely fed up with the tedious process of carrying through reform of institutions, which it was previously thought would be pretty routine and agreed by most people, after the enlargement of the Union. If 26 other countries succeed in ratifying the treaty—that means the Irish succeeding with their referendum—and then the British come along and say, "Sadly, although we, the Government, agree with ratification, and Parliament agrees with it by two to one, we've just got a no vote at the demand of  The Sun newspaper. What do we do now?", it cannot be assumed that everyone else will renegotiate.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) at least accepted that major renegotiation would have to be faced up to. The idea that the other 26 Governments, all of which will have gone through the process of getting the treaty ratified—which will have been politically costly for some of them—will then turn around and say to the Brits, "Well, of course we shall now have to negotiate a European Union on a completely different basis," is, like many of the other arguments I have heard during these debates, absolute fantasy. It would not happen.

Iain Duncan Smith: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Kenneth Clarke: I will in a moment.
	I think the hard-core opponents of the treaty know that perfectly well. I have heard a lot of people say, "I am not against the European Union, I am against the treaty," and there are a handful of them whom I believe, but I do not believe many of them. At the very least, the people who want the referendum believing that they will win a no vote—and none of them would demand a referendum if they thought they would lose it—know that it would cause a deep, deep crisis in our relationships with the rest of the European Union.
	Among the European politicians whom I know are many friends of Britain, who would despair on finding that yet another neurotic spasm was taking place in the British political system, and that we were asking for everything to be reopened. There are provisions in the new treaty allowing members who want to leave to do so. We could start a negotiation on the basis of an association agreement. It takes a long time to secure such agreements, but Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein have managed to achieve them, and we could do the same if that is where we wish to be. But if there were a no vote, our role in the European Union would be finished and the House would be left with the consequences. The majority of us would not agree with the position we were in. It would be quite a decisive moment for our foreign affairs policy and our role in the world.
	I am not impressed with our position in foreign affairs. Both main parties supported the invasion of Iraq, the biggest foreign policy disaster in recent years, and we have a totally discredited American President and Administration. The President now has more support in the House of Commons than he has in Congress, and we do not know where we shall be with whoever wins the next American election.
	The European Union is finally getting its act together in improving its decision-making capacity so that it can move on to deal with economic reform, energy security, climate change, international development and our relations with the Russian Federation. All those are areas in which we need a common position. I would include foreign and security policy in other areas as well, but let us start with Russia. The EU is trying to achieve what we ought to regard as a triumph: an enlarged Union of 27 nation states, including states of the former Soviet Union, ready to move forward. And what do the Eurosceptics say? "We will carry on as we are, left with George W. Bush, and try to detach ourselves from the European Union as it embarks on these great issues"? They do not even know themselves what they would negotiate if they found themselves in an isolated position.
	I shall not go any further into the merits of the bigger issues, but they would all be affected by a no vote in a referendum, which would repudiate Government and the parliamentary majority. There are big, big issues facing the United Kingdom in foreign affairs, and I think that we have been handling them badly for most of the past 10 years. They should be resolved in this House of Commons by a Government who are accountable to parliamentary representatives. To resort to the populism of allowing the media to believe that they can determine such matters in referendums would take us into even worse waters than I believe we are in at the moment.

Gerald Kaufman: I agree with a great deal of what the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said. For instance, I strongly agree with his attitude to referendums. The only referendum of which I have thoroughly approved is the one that was held when I lived in Leeds, on whether cinemas should open on Sundays. That was a very sensible referendum, but I cannot think of many other sensible referendums.
	Referendums are exotic European notions, held in countries such as Switzerland. Although I in no way make any comparison to Members of this House who favour a referendum in today's debate, it must be said that Hitler was a great one for referendums. When he held a referendum in March 1936, his campaign poster urged:
	"Every vote for the Führer!"
	That is the kind of populism that lies behind referendums, and I do not like them.
	I was a member of the Labour Government who held a referendum on Europe in 1975. In my view, it was daft to hold it—but Anthony Wedgwood Benn urged it on the Prime Minister, and nothing more needs to be said about any notion urged on anybody by Anthony Wedgwood Benn. The result was not the one that Benn wanted, however—there was a yes vote with a majority of two to one—and he has campaigned against it ever since. I think that he might be out somewhere now with Brian Haw campaigning for a vote in favour of a referendum. The fact is that people accept referendum results only when they agree with them. Members of the Government had a free vote in the 1975 referendum, and I voted no, although I have since become a good deal wiser about the importance to this country of membership of the European Community and the European Union.

Graham Stuart: The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful argument against the use of referendums. Did he speak out so powerfully when the Labour party announced it as a policy ahead of the 2005 general election and promised a say to the British people?

Gerald Kaufman: I was coming to that very point. The Government promised a referendum on the European constitution in their 2005 election manifesto. In my view, they were daft to do so, but I am a sycophantically loyal Back Bencher and I accepted it; after all, whatever it was, it was not the longest suicide note in history. Therefore, although I did not believe in holding a referendum, as it was in the manifesto on which I was elected, I was bound by it.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Gerald Kaufman: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to proceed for a moment?
	It is important to remind the Committee—I have done so twice, but I shall do so again—of that manifesto commitment, to which I and every other Labour Member of Parliament was bound. It said of the new constitutional treaty:
	"It strengthens the voice of national parliaments and governments in EU affairs. It is a good treaty for Britain and for the new Europe. We will put it to the British people in a referendum and campaign whole-heartedly for a 'Yes' vote to keep Britain a leading nation in Europe."
	It was not, therefore, a commitment to hold any kind of referendum; it was a commitment that everybody elected on the Labour ticket would have to campaign for a yes vote.
	I have a feeling that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson) would have picked and mixed on that part of the manifesto. I have great personal affection for him, as he knows, but I have to tell him that he was wrong about another matter as well. He said that if the Liberal Democrats could get away with it, they would campaign in one part of the country for one thing and for another thing in another part of the country. That is not so. If they could get away with it, they would campaign in one street for one thing and in the next street for another thing. A Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament in Manchester was elected to this House on the false pretext that the Christie cancer hospital would close. Two and a half years later, it is still open, so I would not trust a Liberal Democrat on anything whatsoever. The Conservatives are my opponents and I know where I am with them; I would far rather trust them than the Liberal Democrats, who—well, I had better not go on, because you will not permit certain language in this Committee, Sir Alan. I will now give way to the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory).

David Heathcoat-Amory: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. His party is committed to holding a referendum on the euro if the Government apply to join—a proposition first agreed by the Cabinet in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) served, so the principle of a referendum has been agreed on all sides. What, therefore, is so odd about having a referendum, and keeping our promise to have one, on the treaty of Lisbon?

Gerald Kaufman: I have just explained, laboriously, that we have no commitment to holding a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. There was no such thing as a Lisbon treaty in the 2005 election—it was not envisaged that there would be such a treaty when we were fighting that election. We were committed to—I was committed to—the constitutional treaty to which our Labour Government were committed. Although I will support the Lisbon treaty because I am so loyal to this Government that it actually hurts me, that is not the same as the constitutional treaty on which we had the manifesto pledge. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West talks about the explicit promise in the 2005 Labour party manifesto. There was an explicit promise, but it was to campaign wholeheartedly in favour of accepting, supporting and endorsing the constitutional treaty that was then extant.
	It is interesting to reflect on the Conservatives' attitude to referendums up to now. In the 1990s, they signed up to the Maastricht treaty, which was fundamental—far more so than this treaty or the constitutional treaty that we committed ourselves to supporting in 2005. It turned the European Community into the European Union. It was much more far-reaching than the Lisbon treaty. Did the 1992 Conservative manifesto promise a referendum on the Maastricht treaty? You must be kidding!
	A good deal of reference has been made today to the Labour party's 2005 manifesto, but let us look at the Conservative party's 1992 manifesto:
	"The Conservatives have been the party of Britain in Europe for 30 years...The Maastricht Treaty was a success both for Britain and for the rest of Europe. British proposals helped to shape the key provisions of the Treaty including those"— [Interruption.]
	If the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe will allow me just for a moment—I am sure that he would not want to sully this quotation:
	"British proposals helped to shape the key provisions of the Treaty including those strengthening the enforcement of Community law...subsidiarity and law and order...All Member States must live up to their obligations under Community law. At Maastricht, we"—
	the Tory Government—
	"secured agreement that the European Court will be able to fine any Member State which fails to do so."
	That is what they signed up to.

Kenneth Clarke: As there is much debate about commitment to party manifestos, does the right hon. Gentleman recall, as I do, that one or two Conservative Members of Parliament elected on that manifesto appeared not to pay the slightest attention to it when we debated the Maastricht treaty only a few years later?

Gerald Kaufman: I shall come to that. When this House divided on whether there should be a referendum on Maastricht the votes in favour totalled 124 and the votes against totalled 363.
	When the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), for whom I have great respect because he has been totally consistent on these issues for a long time, sought in this House to secure a referendum, one Tory Minister said that
	"every time we have such a referendum it is, in a sense, an abdication of responsibility by the House and the Government of the day."
	That was said by a member of the Government of whom people on the Conservative Front Bench were members.
	That Minister continued:
	"This Government intend to make no such abdication of their responsibilities; nor do they intend to invite the House to abdicate from its responsibility...The treaty that we have...will require the approval of the House as a necessary pre-condition of ratification by the Government...the House will express the will of the British people in the matter. That will be expressed by freely elected Members of the House in the way that British democracy has traditionally settled these matters, whether they be large or small."—[ Official Report, 21 February 1992; Vol. 204, c. 627-30.]

John Redwood: rose—

Gerald Kaufman: I want to get to the end of this bit, because I find it very interesting.
	Another Foreign Office Minister said:
	"I say simply that I believe our parliamentary democracy is strong enough to survive without referenda."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 30 June 1992; Vol. 538, c. 661.]
	That was the Conservative Government's attitude on the Maastricht treaty.

Peter Tapsell: rose—

Gerald Kaufman: I shall of course give way to the hon. Gentleman, who was secretary of Oxford university Labour club when I was a member.

Peter Tapsell: As I recall, I was simultaneously a member of the Communist club, the Liberal club and the Conservative club—we joined all the clubs for half a crown each.
	Has the right hon. Gentleman noted that since the Conservative party, with the support of the Labour party, passed the Maastricht treaty, it has not won a general election? We intend to win the next one.

Gerald Kaufman: The only Conservative leader since Margaret Thatcher not to have lost a general election is the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), and that was because he did not get the opportunity to lead the Conservative party into a general election.

John Redwood: rose—

Gerald Kaufman: I will proceed a little more.
	When this House debated the Maastricht treaty, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills tabled a new clause calling for a referendum.
	I shall quote the arguments put by the then Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, who always defeated me in debate when I was shadow Foreign Secretary—and when I had the Home Office brief—because of the painful condescension with which he greeted my vehement arguments. Douglas Hurd, who was 10 times the Foreign Secretary that the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) will never be, said of the referendum on Maastricht proposed by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills:
	"The decision for Britain lies where it belongs—in the hands of the British Parliament."
	He claimed that to have a referendum
	"would be a blow to the standing of the House in years to come. We would be saying to our constituents, 'We have examined the matter, but we do not intend to take a decision. We are going to throw the treaty, with all its diverse controversies and complications, into your laps to make of it what you will.'"
	He rejected a referendum on the much more far reaching Maastricht treaty, saying:
	"It cannot be right to refuse to do our job".—[ Official Report, 21 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 455-6.]
	I have told the Committee already that I am as sycophantic in adherence to the Whip as anybody in this House. I abase myself before my Whip, who is in his place to listen to me. I hope that he will let me off one or two debates as a result.  [ Laughter. ] When the Maastricht treaty came before the House, I—sycophantic as always to the Whip—voted against a referendum, as, incidentally, did my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. However, we were not the only ones: others included the present shadow Foreign Secretary, the present shadow Defence Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who became leader of his party, and the present Opposition Chief Whip—

John Redwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Gerald Kaufman: I see that the right hon. Gentleman voted against a referendum as well. I have the full Division list if anybody wants the names. Of those who obeyed the Tory Whip by voting against a referendum on the Maastricht treaty, 70 are still Tory MPs today. I have a feeling that, with the exception of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe and a few of his principled colleagues, every one of them will vote for a referendum this evening.

John Redwood: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has given way, because I think I can spare the Committee some of this misleading, rambling account of ancient history. We voted the way we did, first, because we made no promise at the general election that the people would get a vote; and, secondly, because we offered a referendum on the guts of the Maastricht treaty—the single European currency, which we did not favour. That was the referendum lock. His party offered the people a referendum, but it is now refusing it, so the ancient history is completely irrelevant.

Gerald Kaufman: The right hon. Vulcan—er, Gentleman—may try to wriggle out of the position that he took as a member of the Conservative Cabinet and the fact that he voted against a referendum on Maastricht, but nobody will be impressed. He said one thing as a member of the Government, to keep hold of his red box, his car and ministerial salary, but now, totally irresponsibly, he is ready to switch his position. In the 19th century, a former Conservative Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, described the Conservatives as an organised hypocrisy. The only difference between then and the 21st century is that the Conservatives are no longer organised.

Iain Duncan Smith: I enjoy following the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman). We have agreed on some things; we do not always agree on everything. First, let me state my position, as he did not read my name out from his list. I voted for the referendum on Maastricht. I voted against a lot during that period, but for a referendum, and here I am, still on the Back Benches, which shows what follows all that rebellion.
	I wanted to keep my remarks short, as I know that others wish to speak, but those who believe me when I say that will be mad, because I am a politician and will therefore go on a little bit. The hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson) was right. At the Dispatch Box as Leader of the Opposition—wonderful days—I questioned the then Prime Minister about the issue with no effect, and I asked him for a referendum eight times. Eight times in a row he told me categorically that no such thing was necessary because what was about to happen was not consequential and—what was the phrase used by the Foreign Secretary?—not fundamental. Nothing was so important that it changed our relationship, and so there was no need for a referendum. It was not until after I had gone, sadly, that he gave the pleasure to my successor of agreeing to a referendum. I thought that was a bit mean at the time, because things might have been different—who knows? Never mind; I do not want to go back there.
	That is the main point. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right: we can only reach one simple conclusion. I know that there is a huge debate running and rolling, which is full of history and memory. I love these European debates, because we have a sort of private conversation with each other about what we did 10 years ago, what our antecedents did 100 years ago and what we might be doing in 10 years' time. However, he was right to say that the truth was that the then Prime Minister, with some trusted and confidential friends, made a decision. As they rolled towards an election, they decided that they would not survive it unless they answered the question about the referendum, which the Conservative party claimed was the way to settle the issues about the constitutional treaty. That was very simple.
	We are all politicians—although that might have escaped the notice of one or two colleagues—and we have to win elections. That is the simple sine qua non of being on the Government or Opposition Benches. Occasionally—surprise, surprise—Governments make cynical decisions. The decision on the referendum was a cynical decision made by the Government to get them past the election, and they decided to deal with the rest as it followed.

Mark Hendrick: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the Conservative party asking for a referendum on the Nice treaty before the 2001 election? We made no promise of a referendum, and we still won that election.

Iain Duncan Smith: Come on! I must tell the hon. Gentleman, who intervenes quite a lot, that the politics of the situation dictates what happens at the time. In the time running up to Nice, his Government were not in trouble or difficulty and were able to envisage the coming election with some sanguine sense of success. Things were different by the time they hit 2004 and 2005. The reality was that the decision was taken.
	The intriguing thing, which really bothers me, is that as I watched and listened to the Foreign Secretary, it occurred to me that I had never seen somebody speak for a Government who has looked so contorted and so twisted, and who has so turned in one argument against another. At one moment, his point was only that it was fundamental, but then it was not fundamental; then we were clearing the air, but then we were not because we were clearing fundamentals instead. The argument went round and round. If he reads it in  Hansard tomorrow, he will say to himself, "What an awful day I had. I had to say something that I know is fundamentally not true. There is no major difference between the Lisbon treaty and the constitutional treaty. What happened in between was a political imperative."
	It is worth remembering that Valéry Giscard d'Estaing said something with which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) has agreed, although the latter supports the Government's position on securing the ratification of the treaty. Mr. Giscard d'Estaing has said:
	"In the Treaty of Lisbon, the tools are largely the same. Only the order in which they are arranged in the tool-box has been changed. Why this subtle change? Above all, it is to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary".
	I do not know why we dance around as though this were a silly game. The truth is that the Heads of State and Governments of all the countries that negotiated the constitutional treaty have said to each other, "We have got ourselves in a real mess over this. We allowed the public and politicians who are not responsible members of the Government to play a part"—politicians such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who speaks so cogently on these matters.
	The member states believe that allowing the vox populi to get involved by having referendums in France and Holland put a kibosh on the whole thing, so they concluded that they would not do that again. They learned the lesson of all this nonsense about consulting the public, which is that EU Governments do not get what they want by doing that. They believe that they have a purpose that was laid down by their forefathers, and that they must see it through.
	Europe's bureaucrats have known for years that the way to get things done is never to ask the public if they want them to be done, because the answer will inevitably be no.

John Hayes: Contrary to what we heard earlier, is it not true that a mature political class and a confident Parliament refer to the people on matters of such supreme importance? It is a sign of the lack of confidence of parliamentarians and the political class that they have refused to do so.

Iain Duncan Smith: It is, but that should not surprise my hon. Friend, because he has been a student of the matter for long enough.
	I draw the House's attention back to the intriguing one-sided correspondence with the Government after the collapse of the constitutional treaty and prior to their decisions and the intergovernmental conference. It is reported in the European Scrutiny Committee's third report of Session 2007-08 that the Foreign Secretary's predecessor stated that there was
	"no negotiation in the run-up to the June Council until we saw the text for the first time only a couple of days before the June Council itself".
	Everybody believed that that was when the new treaty was produced, but it was not. We know as a result of a leaked letter that Angela Merkel's Government contacted the other Governments as part of the process of rebuilding the treaty.
	The Germans are wonderfully efficient. They are so efficient that they always keep their records and put everything in them. They are not trying to hide anything from their public, as our Government are. We can congratulate them on that. With ruthless efficiency, they rounded up what members of Governments had said to them in discussions and negotiations. They asked such things as how they could find ways to get the treaty through without having to show that the existing treaties would essentially have to be repealed. One question asked:
	"How do you assess the proposal made by some Member States not to repeal the existing treaties but to return to the classical method of treaty changes while preserving the single legal personality"?
	Another asked:
	"How do you assess the proposal made by some Member States using a different terminology without changing the legal substance"?
	Those are not just questions that the German Government or Angela Merkel wanted to ask. Essentially, they arose from minutes of meetings with either officials or Ministers of other countries.
	The letter is fascinating because it blows the Government's position out of the water. The Government and Angela Merkel knew all along what the process was all about. Having learned the lesson of what had happened to the constitutional treaty, they wanted its provisions back. They felt that they could not proceed without them. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe is honest about that; he believes that Europe needs them to proceed to the next stage, as did Angela Merkel and many other European leaders. The letter shows that they needed to find a way to avoid any reference to the public, such as a referendum.
	The first point about which we should be clear is that the process is a classic, cynical political mechanism. If we believe that, we shall not go far wrong. I do not want to engage in the arguments about whether there were three or 38 things in the treaty—or, as the Liberal Democrats said on television today, that there are so many thousand words versus another so many thousand. It is all meaningless nonsense. The truth is that everybody believes the treaty is basically the same as the constitution. The collapse of the pillars and the nature of the debate are critical, so there is clearly some cynicism.
	There is another reason for a referendum. People talk about the principle that the House should decide, but the truth is that the principle has become a bit of a joke. What do we really think we decide on in this place that the Government have not already told us we must decide? When did the House last manage to insert an amendment at any stage of a European treaty that reflected the will of the public or the House? It has not happened. We know about the wonderful whipping system on both sides of the House—I do not blame the Labour Government for that; I had to defy it myself in my day. The whipping system guarantees that, to a greater or lesser extent, the Government have their way and their business.

William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in a referendum, which is itself authorised by—if I may say it—the humility of Members of Parliament who realise that they must hand the decision back to the people because it is so important, the people would be presented with a neutral question that cannot be whipped, so we would have genuine public opinion?

Iain Duncan Smith: I agree and I hope that my hon. Friend catches your eye, Sir Alan.
	The problem is that there is a conflict. I have enormous respect for my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, as they know. They have constantly and rightly made the argument about the principles of the House and we have debated them many times, yet they may offer a basis for a referendum. Both have complained—rightly—about the way in which the Bill has been railroaded through the House. Debate has been curtailed in the appalling nature of the Second Reading debate instead of the line-by-line discussion we were promised. As I said the other night, who would ever have thought that when the Prime Minister said line by line he actually meant only the top two lines of the treaty with no discussion of the rest. There has been next to no debate, so the argument that should stand—that the House is supreme so it should make the decisions—falls in this case, because we have had no opportunity to make any mark on the treaty or to debate it properly. That process shames the Government, but it leaves us with one question. If we are unable to make the debate work, if we cannot question the Government properly and have no real opportunities to discuss the amendments, the only option open to us is to go to the country, because our process is not working.

John Gummer: I respect my right hon. Friend's views on the matter, but if we took that line we should have to put almost everything that comes to the House to the people. The Government have destroyed the ability of the House to negotiate and discuss all issues. That is the fault of the Government and I can but hope that our Front-Bench colleagues will commit our party to pushing back all that so-called modernisation. However, he is not right to say that the situation is in any way unique—this treaty makes little difference to Britain's position in the European Union.

Iain Duncan Smith: My right hon. Friend and I are as at one on much of what he said, but the difference between the treaty and all the other business in the House over the past 10 years is that once the treaty is passed, it is gone. That will be it. We shall not have another chance. At least we have a chance to revisit domestic legislation and change it, but we get only one shot at European treaties until the next time around. As custodians of sovereignty, we need to refer back to the public if we are letting some of it go. It is as simple as that.

Angela Smith: Is it not a fact that the time given over to discussing the Lisbon treaty in the Chamber is greater than the time provided for the Single European Act, the Amsterdam treaty and the Nice treaty combined?

Iain Duncan Smith: What can I say to the hon. Lady? [Hon. Members: "Say yes!"] I could say yes, and I will. Yes. How about that? That is a bit of honesty. But—there is always a good "but" in politics—the issue is not just about time; it is about quality of time.  [Interruption.] Labour Members should hear me out, because many of them have not been in the Chamber during debates on the Bill. The point is that a mechanism was used to curtail debate in the time allocated. That mechanism provided for Second Reading debates, and not line-by-line scrutiny. The quality of the process has been appalling, because we have allowed ourselves to be sucked into holding generalised discussions, debates and arguments. Only on a few occasions have we been able to get to the substance.
	I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells, because a couple of days ago he got to the meat of the issue—it was the first occasion on which we had time to do so—and raised real concerns. Others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), did so, too. We should have been given the chance to do that day by day, but we were not.

Bernard Jenkin: My right hon. Friend is making a principled case for a referendum, but there is another principled case to be made in its favour: for good or ill, our membership of the European Union—the European Economic Community, as it then was—was eventually sanctioned by a referendum that was held when the EEC was a much more limited enterprise. The reason why ever more people, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), are changing their minds and agreeing that there should be another referendum is that there has been no popular consent for the arrangements that have developed over the years, as represented in the new treaty.

Iain Duncan Smith: I agree. In the referendum that my hon. Friend mentions, I voted to go into the EEC. I do not resile from that; I was right to vote for what I did. I voted to go into a marketplace, and to share certain functions to create that marketplace, but we have gone a lot further than that. The problem is that there is dishonesty in saying, "You all knew about this when you first joined. You all knew, for example, about the supremacy of European law." That is nonsense. People who say that know very well that they did not think about that issue when they voted on whether to join. That is the real reason why it is time to have a referendum on the treaty: it will allow us to tease out the fact that if we keep going down the road that we are taking, without making any change, things will go wrong.

Christopher Huhne: Earlier, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be saying that he would like the opportunity to amend the treaty. It has never been the practice of the House to amend treaties, particularly multilateral treaties. One has to accept or reject them, and there is no possibility of amendment. He says that the matter is final, but that is to disregard an important provision that I thought that he, and many of his more Eurosceptic colleagues, would welcome. For the first time in any European treaty, article 49A introduces the possibility of secession. It is possible for the House to avail itself of that provision, and to secede from the European Union, at any time. In that sense, the move is clearly not final.

Iain Duncan Smith: I am not sure why the hon. Gentleman made that intervention, because there has never been a problem with seceding. We can talk about the details, but the reality is that nation states have always had the right to secede whenever they want, just by getting rid of the Act that brought them into the EU. I am not sure what he is saying; is he saying that the EU could have held on to us? If he is, and the EU is now giving us permission to secede, the situation is beginning to sound a little bit like the situation that faced the federal United States, and the battle between the confederacy and—

John Gummer: Nonsense.

Iain Duncan Smith: I agree that it is nonsense, but that is the nonsensical point made by hon. Gentleman.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Iain Duncan Smith: I want to make progress, because I am conscious that other Members want to speak. Before I conclude, I want to say something about the Liberal Democrats. [Hon. Members: "Why?"] It is good to have a bit of light amusement at some point in a speech.
	The Liberal Democrats have got themselves in a terrible mess. As has been pointed out time and again, they only agreed to hold a referendum because they thought that it would never happen. The moment that they thought that it would happen, they no longer wanted it. They can go on telling the public that one document is different from another, but as Lincoln said, you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. That is what the Liberal Democrats set out to do and they have been found out. How can they have a principled position of sitting on a fence? Those who do that get splinters in their arse and then they get into trouble. The Liberal Democrats are in trouble right now and the best thing for them to do is to get off the fence.
	In conclusion, I am in favour of a referendum because the arguments cannot be properly made unless the public are brought in. The Government gave a pledge to hold a referendum. I do not care what they called it; it is the same treaty. They may have behaved cynically, but they should be held to account.
	I do not know what it is about Europe that seems to change the mentality of Governments. As soon as parties get into government, they dare not do anything that might upset the European Union. Immediately, their arguments go to the extreme. The Government panic and say, "We cannot hold a referendum because that would lead to the process of getting out. That would be a nightmare. We would be cast into the outer darkness. We would be on the periphery of Europe. Nobody will speak to us. We will be cast out, all because we want to vote on the treaty."
	Who told the French and the Dutch that? Who said that they would be cast out when they voted against the constitution? Surprise, surprise, they were not cast out. Everybody said, "Oh my God, we have to accommodate the French and the Dutch. Let's start all over again and have another look at it." As a sovereign nation state, we have every right to make that statement in exactly the same way as the Dutch and the French.
	I ask the House to have a little self-confidence. All of us came here to state that we do not believe a word the Government say until they show it in the text, in writing and in detail. We do not believe or trust them until we see how the treaty will work. Too many Labour Back Benchers are too ready to trust their Government when the Government say, "Please trust us." Tonight they should support the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West when he proposes his amendment.

Geraldine Smith: I am firmly opposed to a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. The matter should be decided by Parliament. I have come to that conclusion not simply because all the previous EU treaties have rightly been dealt with in that way, but because of the different impact that a rejection by Parliament would have, compared with a rejection by referendum.
	In the case of Parliament refusing to ratify the treaty, that would be after a comprehensive debate and the Government would be left in no doubt which measures in the treaty were unacceptable. In the case of a no vote in a referendum, the reasons for rejection would be unclear and would be subject to a wide range of interpretation. Nobody would have any idea which parts the public agreed with and which parts they did not agree with.
	Such a situation would undoubtedly undermine the United Kingdom's standing within the EU and would mean that, for the foreseeable future, the much needed structural changes to the EU could not be implemented, leaving the organisation to lumber on in its present unsatisfactory way.

John Redwood: Then why did not all those arguments dissuade the hon. Lady's party from putting the promise in its manifesto?

Geraldine Smith: What can I say? I spoke in the House in about 2004 and was not in favour of a referendum on the then constitution. There have been sufficient changes since then to make it a different document to be put before Parliament. If Parliament decided to abandon its responsibility this evening to determine the matter, it would be performing a great disservice to the country.
	I am well aware of the widespread public concern in my constituency and elsewhere about the reform treaty. I am equally aware of the substantial demand for a referendum on it. I accept that people in my constituency say that they would like a referendum on the treaty. Although I understand the justifiable concerns that people have about the contents of the treaty, I firmly believe that many of those concerns are a result of wild speculation and misinformation from a multitude of sources, some of them in the House.
	I firmly believe that, if a referendum were to be held, a no vote would be the outcome, not because of any perceived or real flaws in the treaty, but because many people are currently deeply dissatisfied with many aspects of the European Union and its bureaucratic institutions and procedures. I share most of that dissatisfaction and I understand the desire to express it in a ballot.

Jim Cunningham: Most of us acknowledge that some people in our constituencies are understandably uneasy about the treaty. However, does my hon. Friend agree that that is possibly because the Government have not put enough impetus behind explaining the facts to the public?

Geraldine Smith: It is difficult because the document is so complex. It is impossible to hold a referendum on a lengthy document such as the treaty. We would always end up with a no vote because there will always be things that people do not like, and they will focus on them.

John Gummer: Does the hon. Lady agree that it is unlikely that many people have read the treaty of Lisbon—or would read it, were a referendum to be held? Would not they therefore get their views entirely from the press, which is dominated by a non-British individual who has opposed the European Union all his life?

Geraldine Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is right. There is no way that people would plough through the document.

Simon Burns: Have you?

Geraldine Smith: Yes, I have. It is always wise when speaking in the Chamber to examine what one intends to speak about.
	The document is long and complex and I cannot see people around the country sitting in their houses reading it, and discussing it night after night in the pubs and clubs to the extent that we have done in Parliament. Yet Conservative Members still complain that we have not had enough time. If Conservative Members need so much time, why do not the people of the country?

Iain Duncan Smith: How many of the hon. Lady's colleagues have read the treaty, in her opinion? Should those who have not done so exercise their vote when the time comes?

Geraldine Smith: I have not conducted a survey of my colleagues, so I have no way of answering the question.

Stewart Hosie: On three or four occasions today, the hon. Lady has said that the treaty is complicated and the people are too stupid to understand it.  [Interruption.] I paraphrase, but it is fundamentally what she is saying. In previous referendums in Europe on other treaties, especially in France, the entire treaty has been published to give the general public the opportunity to read it in full, as well as the commentaries, narratives and newspaper leader columns. Surely, even in Morecambe, people are smart enough to read and understand the treaty and reach a considered view on it. Why does the hon. Lady believe that her constituents, mine and others cannot do that?

Geraldine Smith: I do not believe that they cannot do it; I simply think that they would not bother because they would not find it relevant to their lives. I do not believe that they would have time—many people live busy lives—and that is why they elect representatives to make some decisions on complex documents that are placed before us. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the referendum in France. He cannot have it both ways. Either the referendum made a difference and led to a new treaty, which was not the constitution, or the treaty is the constitution, so the people getting a vote made no difference. What is it to be?

Stewart Hosie: The answer is what is in front of us. The referendum made a difference, but not in fundamentally changing the document. Its portrayal has changed to pretend that it is something different. That is what happened.

Geraldine Smith: The French and the people in the Netherlands must have thought that it made sufficient difference to them.

Graham Stuart: My constituents feel that they are capable of taking a decision on this issue. They feel that they have been promised a say and that the constitution has been changed only enough to get it below the bar, so that the European elite, of whom the hon. Lady is clearly a member, can stop the people from having that say on something that is fundamental and matters to them, and on which they have had a promise.

Geraldine Smith: I believe, if there is a bit of honesty, that the hon. Gentleman's constituents and mine would like an opportunity to vote on the treaty, and vote against it. However, I do not believe that that is because of anything that they have read about the treaty or any of its real or perceived flaws—it is because of their deep dissatisfaction with the European Union. I will come to that issue in a moment.

David Chaytor: Is not the really significant thing about the French referendum that since the abandonment of the constitutional treaty and the development of the Lisbon treaty, there has been zero interest among the 60 million people in France in a referendum on the Lisbon treaty? That is surely the significant point.

Geraldine Smith: It is right to say that the constitution was abandoned.
	I want to make progress. It is clear that the European Union needs a comprehensive overhaul of its operating procedures.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The treaty before us is the end product of a long process of renegotiation and failed reform set in train by the Laeken declaration of 2001. We have ended up with a treaty that, instead of reforming Europe, has consolidated more powers at the top. Why does the hon Lady think that her constituents and mine should be denied an opinion on whether they agree with that reform process and the treaty that has come out of it?

Geraldine Smith: I do not accept that the treaty is all bad and does not reform; there are some very good things in it. I believe that the number of EU Commissioners should be reduced, and I am pleased that that is happening. I am also interested that the treaty provides a mechanism for member states that wish to change their relationship with the European Union or withdraw from it; it means that they will be able to do so in a negotiated fashion. That has not existed before, and I would have thought that any Eurosceptic would welcome it.
	I shall try to move on. The European Union now represents 27 countries with a combined population of more than 490 million people. Its institutions and working practices are hopelessly out of date and failure to reform them will continue to constrain their ability to function anywhere near as effectively as they should. I am sure that few people, in the House or outside it, would disagree that widespread reform is essential.
	I should like to make it clear that I do not in any way perceive the Lisbon treaty as some panacea for reforming the European Union, but it will help it work slightly more effectively. It is difficult to see how an organisation that seeks to manage much of the economic, social and political affairs of 27 diverse nations—each of them answerable to their domestic voters with all their problems, aspirations and political agendas—could aspire to do anything else. However, I believe that a number of measures in the treaty will help. The Lisbon treaty offers significant improvements over the current arrangements, and that is why I am supporting it.
	Finally, I want to comment on what I believe is a fundamental flaw in our relationship with and continuing membership of the EU. It is now 34 years since we joined the European Union and 32 years since we reaffirmed our membership in a referendum. In fact, nobody under the age of 50—I count myself in that group—has had the opportunity to vote on our membership of the organisation, which affects so many aspects of our lives, even more so in recent years.
	The passage of time, allied to the enormous economic and political change that has taken place in the EU, has undoubtedly created a democratic deficit that needs to be urgently addressed—I accept that. Throughout the period in question, no mainstream political party advocated withdrawal from the EU, and I suspect that that will still be the case at the next general election. That state of affairs has left the British people with no realistic option other than to accept that membership of the EU, whatever its faults, is synonymous with UK citizenship. I do not believe for a minute that those who voted to join the EU in 1975 believed that they were making an irreversible commitment. It is high time that the question of our continuing membership of the EU was put before the British people, not as a simple yes/no question, but as a choice between clear alternatives.
	I believe that many of the perceived benefits of belonging to the EU are not dependent on our continuing membership of it, such as co-operation with EU partners on measures to deal with terrorism, people trafficking, drug and gun smuggling and other forms of international crime. Is that co-operation really dependent on our continuing membership? I do not think so. It is more likely that withdrawal from the EU would curb the ability of those who engage in such despicable practices to enter our country in the first place. Nor do I believe that the impact on trade, jobs or investment will necessarily be negative. There is plenty of evidence that if the UK's economy was relieved—

The Chairman: Order. In the last few moments I have been listening anxiously to the hon. Lady, who now seems to be seriously off track as far as the amendments are concerned. I urge her to bring her remarks to a close.

Geraldine Smith: I will try to get back on track, Sir Alan.

Desmond Swayne: Although the hon. Lady may be off message, as the Minister might say, she is making a powerful case for the amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson).

Geraldine Smith: I looked very carefully at that amendment, but I am afraid that I will not support it because it mentions support for the Lisbon treaty.
	Moving back, as you have guided me to do, Sir Alan, the Lisbon treaty contains mechanisms for member states to reclaim competences from the EU and to opt out of participating in a number of policy areas. It also provides machinery for member states to negotiate voluntary withdrawal from the EU or the establishment of a new relationship with it. That is what we should be looking at. We need to set up a royal commission to look at all the issues—[Hon. Members: "A review?"] It would not be a review; it would be a commission, which would look at all the options available concerning Europe. It might recommend options that would change our relationship, if necessary. We should not rush into anything, and we should carry out that process in an organised fashion. That is what the people of this country really want. They want a serious public debate on Europe, and at the end of that debate, they will want some options. I would also say that at the very end of the process, they should have a referendum on the options produced by that commission.
	I can put forward such a view and still vote against a referendum on the treaty, and I suggest that the Liberal Democrats should do the same. If they are against a referendum on the treaty, they should vote against it. That would not prevent them from putting forward other suggestions, as I have done today.

Malcolm Bruce: Towards the end of her speech, the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) was in danger not only of being out of order, but of putting across her preferred European dimension. The trouble is that there are 60 million people in Britain, and in practice, one cannot proceed to determine our relationship with the European Union in that way.
	I have been following the most recent process closely. Indeed, I read the draft constitution before the French people rejected it. Personally, I thought that the contents were valuable, and I am glad to say that many of the most valuable parts are in the treaty of Lisbon, which is why I am happy to support that, too. Nevertheless, the constitution was an attempt to create a watershed moment in the European Union, which made it completely different in character from all the amending treaties that had gone before—from the founding treaty, the treaty of Rome, through all the others that have been mentioned, right up to the treaty of Lisbon.
	That is why, as somebody who is not an enthusiast for referendums and who believes that many of the reservations that have been expressed today are valid, I nevertheless felt that a constitution that swept up more than 50 years of European Union history, from the founding treaty to the most recent amending treaty, was an appropriate moment to redefine the relationship and give people the chance, which they have not had for more than 30 years, to determine whether the new, reformed, relaunched European Union—that was the intention—was where we wanted to go. That is why I was happy to support my party's commitment at the last election to hold a referendum on a constitutional treaty.
	However, at the very moment that we were committing ourselves to that, the French and the Dutch were deciding that no such constitutional treaty was likely to exist. I do not wish to repeat the arguments, which have already been rehearsed today, about the processes by which we moved from there to where we are now. What is a matter of concern, however, is that the process that we are using is far less transparent and consultative than it could and should be. One of the things that I particularly welcome about the treaty of Lisbon is that it gives national Parliaments a more clearly articulated role in that process. In the future—I hope that this will be in the long term, before we get to the next reforming treaty—the process may well involve the 27 national Parliaments.
	At the end of the day, however, we must accept that treaties can be negotiated only by Governments. Governments can consult a lot better, but treaties cannot be negotiated by 27 Parliaments, and they certainly cannot be negotiated by 490 million people. There comes a point when, even with the best endeavours that have been made, people have to decide whether something is good enough for them to continue. The disingenuousness and dishonesty of many of the arguments come from ignoring the consequences of that.
	It has been said—but it must be said again and again—that Conservative Members are asking for a referendum on the treaty of Lisbon, which is not a constitutional treaty, because they want to defeat it and because they know that, as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) clearly articulated, the consequence of that would be to paralyse the Union and destroy Britain's competitive and effective relationship within it.

Angus MacNeil: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 80 per cent. of voters in the north-east of Scotland want a referendum on the Lisbon treaty?

Malcolm Bruce: I do not think it possible to say that 80 per cent. of voters in the north-east of Scotland want any such thing. All tests of opinion, nearly all of which have been less than objective, have indicated that people want a treaty; but the majority of people would like a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union, not on the Lisbon treaty, about which most of them have not been informed. As someone who reads and pursues the media of the north-east of Scotland every day, I have to say that people's ability to be informed on the contents of the treaty of Lisbon is not very apparent.

David Chaytor: For those of us who find the idea of an in/out referendum at some point in the future extremely attractive, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his party's decision to abstain on the amendment has weakened its capacity to put forward the very pro-European views that he advocates?

Malcolm Bruce: Absolutely not. Our view is that if we vote against the amendment, we will be voting against the principle of a referendum. The referendum is a principle that we like; what we do not like is the question. I do not wish to test the patience of the Chair, but the House will have noticed that our party has unfortunately been considerably frustrated in our attempts to get the words that we want put before the House and debated in ways that would make our position abundantly clear. We have to live with that frustration, but it has put us in the position of having to deal with what is before the House rather than with what we wish was before the House. I have to say that that is too often the case.

Hon. Members: Resignation.

Malcolm Bruce: Regarding the comments from those on the Benches behind me, one thing that I am proud of is that, in all the time that I have been involved in my party, it has clearly and consistently been in favour of our joining the European Union, being a constructive and engaged member of the European Union, and supporting progressive reform of the European Union. The nationalists, however, have never known which way to turn. They voted no in 1975, then they claimed that they wanted independence in Europe, and now they want to vote against the treaty of Lisbon while somehow or other saying that they are still pro-European. They are utterly and totally confused; they are in a totally tartan dwam as far as this issue is concerned.

Gisela Stuart: The right hon. Gentleman is a genuinely committed European, and I believe that he would like to take the people with him in his vision of Europe. Does he not think that a referendum would provide a much better opportunity to extol the benefits of, and to make the case for, the European Union, rather than blackmailing people by simply asking, "In or out?"?

Malcolm Bruce: No. Perhaps I should not be surprised by the way in which the hon. Lady's relationship with, and attitude to, Europe has changed because of her experience of the negotiating process. I would have thought, however, that she would understand that if the United Kingdom decided now, in the present circumstances, to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, and if we failed to ratify the treaty as a result, we would be faced with an internal dilemma, in that two thirds of Parliament would have voted one way, while the people would have voted the other way. That would be a domestic problem, as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe has articulated. Also, we would certainly have created a degree of resentment among our European colleagues for having held up a difficult process at a crucial moment. I think that the hon. Lady knows perfectly well that those would be the consequences of such a decision.
	I am articulating my party's view, which is that after 35 years, it is appropriate to say to people, "The European Union has been modified by treaties. This is actually a good reforming treaty, which will leave it in better shape than most of the previous ones—certainly Nice and Amsterdam—did," and to ask them, "Will you vote for Britain to be in Europe, but as a package, on the understanding that that is with the Lisbon treaty?" The Lisbon treaty is not optional. We cannot be in Europe and not ratify the Lisbon treaty.

Michael Connarty: It seems entirely consistent, given the policies of the Lib Dems, that they would want both to stay in Europe and to give people a choice in a referendum. I can see how that is consistent. I do not particularly support referendums; I do not think that they fit with, or should be part of, the parliamentary process. Is it true, however, that the Liberal Democrats intend to abstain this evening, rather than voting for the treaty to go through, and against a referendum?

Malcolm Bruce: We have made it abundantly clear that we are voting for the treaty, but that we are not voting for a referendum on it. As I said to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), I believe that it is fundamentally disingenuous and dishonest seriously to suggest that it is possible to vote against the Lisbon treaty while maintaining that Britain's membership of the European Union would not be compromised by such an act—

Michael Connarty: rose—

Malcolm Bruce: The Conservatives' position is quite simple. They do not wish Britain to continue as an effective member of the European Union, and the purpose of their amendment is to start that process—

Hon. Members: Give way!

Sylvia Heal: Order. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) could make it clear whether he will give way to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty).

Malcolm Bruce: indicated assent.

Michael Connarty: I asked the hon. Gentleman what I thought was a simple question, but he did not quite answer it. Following the logic of what he has just said about consistent support for the European Union and getting the treaty through, will he explain why he and other members of his party are going to abstain tonight?

Malcolm Bruce: My colleagues and I have repeated the explanation ad nauseam. If it is impossible for people to hear or understand it, that is their problem, not mine.
	We are engaged in a process to determine whether this country is going to be a leading member of the European Union or a continually moaning, peripheral country that is increasingly becoming a tiresome irritant to the 26 other member states that want to go forward. That is why we believe that there is a case for having a defining referendum, in which we can ask the people of Britain whether they want to continue with this enterprise, as we do, or to put themselves on the margins of Europe and accept the consequences of so doing.
	In September last year, I visited Estonia with a group of liberal democrat parliamentarians and had a very constructive meeting with the Prime Minister, Andrus Ansip. He is, of course, a leading member of the liberal parties of Europe—as, indeed, is the leading opposition party in Estonia— [Interruption.] It would be fair to say that Estonia is probably the most liberal country in Europe. It is worth listening to the voice of the people of Estonia.

Mark Harper: rose—

Austin Mitchell: rose—

Malcolm Bruce: Let me make this point. One thing that the Estonian people will tell us is that they spent 700 years trying to escape from outside oppression—most recently, escaping from the Soviet Union. They are certainly not interested in buying into some kind of European superstate, which the Conservative party is so afraid of. What they want is a functioning, effective, working Europe in which decisions can be taken by 27 countries, and in which a small country such as Estonia can have its proper place and influence. The Prime Minister of Estonia told me that he sincerely hoped the UK was not going to be instrumental in delaying or obstructing implementation of the treaty of Lisbon. For my part, I said that I would do everything I could to ensure that that did not happen, and that the treaty would be ratified, because I shared his view that ratification was in the best interests of Europe.

Mark Harper: It is interesting to note that the hon. Gentleman is willing to listen to the people of Estonia, but not to the people of Britain. Leaving that aside, however, will he clarify his earlier comment that if the House were to grant a referendum and the British people were to vote against ratification of the Lisbon treaty, it would in some way compromise our membership of the European Union? That did not happen when the French and Dutch refused to ratify the constitutional convention: they are still members of the EU and no one called that into question, so why does the hon. Gentleman think that it would be any different for Britain?

Malcolm Bruce: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman travels at all in Europe or talks to our political colleagues— [Interruption.] Yes, we need to bear in mind that our Conservatives do not have any! Those of us who talk to mainstream political groups in pretty well every country in Europe could tell the hon. Gentleman quite categorically that the process by which the constitution was abandoned was painful enough. The follow-up process whereby 27 countries sought to reach agreement by delivering the Lisbon treaty and its many constructive and practical measures—the British Government, along with the German Government, played a constructive role—was also hugely difficult. If the hon. Gentleman believes that it would be willingly acceded to if the UK Government stood up and said, "Sorry, guys, I know that 26 of you are already going to adopt this treaty, carry it forward and start working with it, but we are not, as we want another couple of years to rethink the whole thing," I have to tell him that he is living in cloud cuckoo land. The truth is that we do not know what the consequences of a no vote in a referendum would be, but it would certainly not be in the interests of the United Kingdom, of our reputation or of our influence within the European Union.

Austin Mitchell: Not knowing the consequences has not stopped the hon. Gentleman from asserting them very vigorously—and, in my view, inaccurately. Amendment No. 296 provides for an enabling power to have another referendum, so would that not satisfy the Liberal desire to have their in/out referendum?

Malcolm Bruce: If the hon. Gentleman had been in his place earlier, he would have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) explain that an amendment that would allow the Government to write any question, or no question, as they liked, does not tell the House what is wanted clearly enough. That makes it a non-workable and non-functioning amendment.
	To be honest, I take a very simple view. First, we as a party are unreservedly and unapologetically pro the European Union, pro Britain's membership of the European Union and pro a functioning Union of 27 states that can take decisions in an intelligent format. At the same time, we believe that the British people deserve the right to have a real debate about what kind of Union it is—because we cannot create it in our own image—and whether they want to continue with the enterprise.
	That is a risky venture, but one that we as a party would be willing, indeed enthusiastic, to take to the people. If we had been given a vote on it and the House had supported us, that is the referendum that people would have had—and I believe that it would have been won—rather than a referendum in which there is an attempt to persuade people that it is possible to vote for continued membership of the Union without ratifying the treaty of Lisbon. That is a dream world: it is not reality, it does not make political sense, and it will not be supported by our party.

Several hon. Members: rose —

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. As the amount of time left for Back-Bench speeches is very limited, I make a plea to all Members who are hoping to catch my eye to make their contributions concise.

Kate Hoey: Anyone observing today's debate will have been surprised by the contributions of Members who suggested that the treaty, the constitution or whatever it is called is so complicated that the people could not possibly be asked to become involved with it, or could not possibly understand it. I do not think that people will like being told that, and I do not think that they will like the implication of the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) that we are somehow so different that it was okay for the people of Germany and the Netherlands to reject the constitution.

Michael Connarty: And France.

Kate Hoey: And France. I was there as well, so I am sorry that I got that wrong.
	It was implied that if our people were given a referendum and had the audacity to vote no, it would completely change our relationship—

Christopher Huhne: rose—

Kate Hoey: I am not going to take any interventions, because I know that many Members wish to speak.
	Let me make a simple point. In April 2004 the then Prime Minister and leader of my party, Tony Blair, announced that the EU constitution would be put to a referendum. He said:
	"Let the people have the final say by way of a referendum... if we are to make the case...we will have to make it to the British people."
	The Prime Minister was emphatic:
	"There is no question of any constitutional treaty going through without the express consent of the British people...we will have a referendum."
	He went further, and said something that has not been mentioned so far today:
	"What you cannot do is...get a rejection of the treaty and bring it back with a few amendments and say, 'Have another go.' You cannot do that. If the people vote no, they vote no".
	The problem is that we have ended up with a situation in which the treaty has been brought back.
	The most honest Member in the House today—I am not saying that everyone else has not been honest, Mrs. Heal, because I know that we are all honest here—was the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). He said clearly and specifically as a pro-European that in his view there is no difference between the constitution and the treaty. He happens to be my constituent when he is in London, so I do not want to disagree with him when he says something like that. For me, he has summed the whole thing up.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be in a different party from me, but he has been so pro-European and so committed in principle to his opposition to a referendum—he has not shifted back and forth depending on whether his party leadership changed its view—that I am with him on that point. No matter what is said here today, no matter how many fine words are uttered and no matter how great the detail, the vast majority of the public know that what we are voting for in the treaty is exactly the same, and has the same intent, as the constitution on which the Prime Minister promised a referendum—a promise that was included in our manifesto.
	For me, this is about honesty in politics. It is about saying what you mean and then doing what you mean. We all have a responsibility to what we said in that manifesto, and we all have a responsibility to recognise the consequences if we do not support a referendum tonight. I hope that some of my colleagues have been influenced by the many good speeches today in favour of a referendum, but the matter is not over yet, because if we do not secure a vote tonight, it will go to the House of Lords. Do we really want to run the risk of the unelected House of Lords sending back measures that we have refused to agree to because we, as elected politicians, do not want to go along with our manifesto commitments? That would be ridiculous, and it would show what a farce the whole situation has become.
	We have an opportunity tonight to put a little faith and trust back in politics and politicians. The public are so cynical about us as individuals, although not necessarily in all constituencies, and the overall political system. The big gap that now exists between Parliament and the people out in the country will be made even bigger if we all troop into the Lobby and vote against a referendum—I hope that will not happen. I will certainly stick to my manifesto commitment and to my personal commitment—I specifically said in my election address that I supported a referendum. I hope that many of my colleagues will join me tonight.

David Curry: It is never comfortable to vote with another party in this House, especially when Labour has made such a pig's ear of the arguments that it seeks to defend, but I shall do so. At least I can say that none of us will have the distasteful task of having to go through the Lobby with the Liberal Democrats, so I shall be limited to a single disagreeable experience rather than a double one.
	In Prime Minister's questions a few hours ago, the Prime Minister challenged the Conservatives to put a positive case for Europe. Given his behaviour, it struck me that he had either a short memory or an entirely unexpected sense of humour.
	I explained the action that I shall take to my Whips when this series of debates started, and no pressure has been put on me to change my mind. There has been entirely honourable and civilised respect for the views that I have held for a long time, and if newspaper reports and Tea Room gossip are right, that contrasts with the amateur theatricals and hysterics that have been reported from the office of the Labour Chief Whip.
	I must make a confession: I stood for election on a manifesto that promised a referendum on this treaty, but we all do things like that. When we stand for election on a party manifesto, we are basically saying that we support that party to form the next Government. It does not mean—it has never been understood to mean this—that we subscribe to every iota of that manifesto. Indeed, I am slightly surprised that a number of my party colleagues appear to have given their own manifesto such minute examination, as I usually give other parties' manifestos more examination than my own party's.
	In making this point, I appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). If he regarded the manifesto as some sort of Biblical truth, he would find it difficult to be here in this House, as would I, and I suspect that an examination of the websites of some of my Conservative colleagues would reveal a declared intention to leave the European Union, which I doubt will appear in the next Conservative manifesto, but as far as I am concerned that should not disqualify them from standing as Conservatives or sustaining the next Conservative Government.

Richard Shepherd: Was my right hon. Friend a member of the Government in, say, the 1992 period? On being held to manifesto pledges, the truth is that hardly anyone in the country reads manifestos. The intimate connection between individual Members and their constituencies is in their election address, which is where they explain why they will not support any major manifesto themes or issues. I take it that my right hon. Friend did that.

David Curry: I reassure my hon. Friend that I always set out my own election address. The party tends to offer a format, which I have never adopted because I wish to express my personal views to my constituents. One thing that nobody in my constituency can complain about is that they are not aware of my views on or commitment to engagement in Europe. Of course, a great many people have made representations to me, and I hope that each of them believes that they received a substantive response to their points. I respect their arguments, as much as I ask them to respect my long-standing arguments. If I wished to be epigrammatic about it, I would say that I am a representative, not a delegate. If I wished to be a delegate, I would stand for the Congress of the Chinese Communist party in what is wittily called the Great Hall of the People.
	The argument whether this constitution is the same as the old one, or whether this treaty is the same as the old one, is totally barren. As it happens, I voted for the old constitution, so for me this matters rather less than it might do to most. One can quote Valéry Giscard d'Estaing till the cows come home, but the fact is that if one approved the old constitution, one will say that it is pretty well the same thing; if one did not, one will claim that it is something different. That is the simplest ABC of political technology, which we find in every single democratic country. For my money, of course it is the same document; for most countries, it is the same document.
	The argument in this Chamber has been to what extent the red lines and opt-outs have changed the nature of the obligations and commitment that Britain accepted. The United Kingdom's relationship to the treaty is different from the one we had to the old constitution, but I accept that there is bound to be a huge amount of argument about the extent to which that is bankable.
	I have a fundamental objection to referendums. Of course I accept that there are occasions when a once-in-a-lifetime issue arises that we ought to refer to the country at large, but if one looks at the history of referendums, one finds that they are usually used to override democratic scrutiny and debate. That is the 19th-century history of referendums. They often seek a simplistic response to an often simplistic question, in which the consequences of the answer are never explored, and they usually take the form of a surrogate verdict on the Government themselves. The question and the answer are sometimes widely removed from each other.

John Gummer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem with referendums is that they often transfer the decision not from the representatives of the people to the people, but from the representatives of the people to the unelected press?

David Curry: It is certainly true that a strong body of the press articulates vitriolic hostility to the European Union and to this treaty, and such comment is not always as informed as it might be. The comfort that I find is that I wonder how many people buy the red tops for the political comment, rather than for the coverage of media personalities, the world of sport and footballers' wives. That is quite legitimate, and occasionally all of us enjoy a surreptitious glance to relieve some of the rigours— [ Interruption. ] I invite colleagues in Portcullis House to look in the corner room where the newspapers are stacked and observe how rapidly they disappear through the course of the day. It is not always the coffee machine that people are in pursuit of.
	We constantly wring our hands about the decline of Parliament and its impotence in the face of the Executive. The real issue is the balance of power not between us and the European Union or between Parliament and the people outside, but between the Executive, whom we send into government, and elected representatives in Parliament itself. My party is devoting a huge amount of energy to looking at how we might redress the balance in the way in which our democratic processes work in the Westminster village. That is a far more urgent task than dealing with some of the fears that we are expressing at the moment.
	In the last debate in which I spoke, I said that the Eurosceptic motto might be:
	"Present fears
	Are less than horrible imaginings".
	I apologise for attributing that to Milton; if I were better read, I would have realised that it comes from Macbeth.
	If we have a referendum on this treaty, how should I argue to my constituents about other things on which we might hold a referendum? What about detention without trial? That fundamental issue of civil liberties has far greater implications for our liberties than anything contained in this treaty. I am an old-fashioned liberal—I am sorry about that—who, in a sense, echoes Roy Jenkins's view that there were many merits to the permissive society. If we move from representative government to government by plebiscite, how much of the architecture of the liberal and tolerant society would be demolished?
	I do not disagree with the thesis that there will be once-in-a-lifetime occasions when referendums are necessary. Our joining the European Union and the subsequent endorsement of that was a key point. I accept that if we were to join the single currency, it would be a sufficiently dramatic change as to require the endorsement of the people and the legitimacy that that would confer. I note that one of the biggest changes that has affected this House is devolution. Indeed, we constantly complain about the way in which the balance of power in this Chamber has been shifted by devolution, the creation of a Parliament in Scotland and an Assembly in Wales and the process in Northern Ireland. Some 85 per cent. of the British people were not consulted on the transfer of power that that brought about.
	This treaty is not a great breaking point or a hinge of our contemporary history; it is, broadly speaking, tidying up. It contains a lot of common sense, and five years down the road people will wonder whether all the terrible things that were supposed to flow from it actually happened—I suspect that they will not have happened.
	If we say no to the treaty, the European Union will not collapse and Britain will not be expelled. Europe is jolly good at muddling through. As soon as one negotiation is completed, Europe is condemned to begin the next negotiation. The one thing that cannot be done sensibly is to walk away from the negotiations, because the process is ongoing and grinding. The extent to which it works and what comes out of it at the end is amazing.
	We should not assume that we are in the same position as three or four years ago at the point of the French and the Dutch referendums, because things have moved on and a renegotiation has taken place. It would be seriously dislocating for the UK to find itself demanding that process again, and it would also be seriously dislocating for my party. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) will be the next Prime Minister, and when we look at this directionless and purposeless Government, that becomes increasingly plausible and desirable.
	It would not be in my right hon. Friend's interests to inherit an intractable time and energy-sapping dispute with the European Union and to have it hanging over his head, so it is in my party's interests that this business is dispatched and that we move on to new business. If we do not move on, he would have to deal with nagging voices on the Conservative Benches and in the party seeking to question the whole issue of Britain's membership of the European Union. He would need three hands to deal with not only the issue of Britain's relationship with Europe in the short term and the treaty, but a bigger issue that would begin to emerge and that would threaten the success of his first term as Prime Minister. I want him to have his hands free to deal with the hugely important and urgent things that a Conservative Government would need to address.
	Equally, I think that the European Union needs no more treaty making within the foreseeable future, because there are other pressing agendas such as climate change, migration and asylum, which will flow largely from climate change, terrorism, competition and the protection of the role of developing countries in a global economy. Nothing assures us that the European Union will deal with such agendas, but the treaty gives it a better chance of doing so, if the political will exists.
	We should start by dispatching the Lisbon treaty in this House, where the decision making belongs, for ratification across the European Union. We would then be able to move on to the agendas pressing on us—how the UK governs itself and how Europe can better represent the interests of all the citizens of Europe, which it increasingly encompasses.

Mike Gapes: I shall try to be brief. I put a message to all Europhobes on my website, saying that I intended to vote for the Lisbon treaty. I did so because I wanted to provoke a reaction from my constituents. Many words have been spoken about the great interest in the subject outside the House, but I have had only one e-mail and one letter from my constituents— [ Interruption. ] I am waiting for more to come.
	The e-mail said that the treaty was "introducing communism by stealth" into this country, and the letter said that because of my views, I deserved a long, lingering and painful death. That indicates the level of interest of some people. However, I have had letters from non-constituents, both before I put the message on my website and subsequently. They spoke of the German plot to take over Europe, the Pope and many other examples of the fantasies that some obsessives have about the European Union.
	Someone spoke of the need for honesty in politics, and I agree. We need to be honest about this treaty and about the basis of the debate that we are having. I will be honest: I have always opposed referendums. I was extremely disappointed and shocked in 2004 when our party leader bounced the party into that position. I cast no aspersions on the reasons for that move. I simply believe that it was a mistake then and has had some very serious and unfortunate consequences for the political debate. It has meant that there has been no open public debate on these European issues. For two years after the rejection of the constitutional treaty in France and the Netherlands, we did not really have a proper debate and discussion during the period of reflection.
	I had hoped that this debate, over the 11 interminable days, would have raised the quality of the public debate, and that our newspapers and television media would have given it detailed consideration, but sadly they are interested only in process, personalities and splits. Indeed, some of the earlier debate in Committee today reflected that. The media are not interested in the detail of why the Lisbon treaty is in Britain's interests and how it will reform the European Union to ensure a more efficient and effective way of working after enlargement to 27 countries.
	I do not wish to repeat the arguments, and I also referred to the issues in the debate on the foreign policy aspects of the treaty and on Second Reading. However, it is not helpful to have a statement from the shadow Foreign Secretary that the Foreign Affairs Committee said that the Lisbon treaty was exactly the same as the constitutional treaty. That is not what it said, and I tried to intervene again, but the right hon. Gentleman would not take the intervention. I wish to place it on the record that the Committee did not say that. It pointed out that the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs had been replaced with a high representative for foreign and security policy. It also pointed out that there were two UK-inspired but non-legally binding declarations on common foreign and security policy in the text, neither of which were in the constitution. It is therefore not true to say that the treaty is exactly the same.
	The people who are against the Lisbon treaty are trying to argue that there is no change or significant difference. As other Committees have commented, however, there are differences in some aspects of the treaty, such as the justice and home affairs issues referred to by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne). As has been mentioned, there are the UK Government's red lines, which mean that the treaty is different for the UK than it is for the other 26 member states—or the other 25, because Poland has some association with the UK on some issues. That is how the debate should have been conducted.

James Clappison: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mike Gapes: Just a moment—

Hon. Members: Give way!

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It is entirely up to the hon. Member on his or her feet to decide whether to give way. We are now running short of time.

Mike Gapes: I want to conclude. The debate in our media has not helped to clarify the issues or people's understanding of them. The debate in some parts of the House has not helped to get that clarity either. I understand the frustrations of the Liberal Democrats, which were referred to by the Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). They feel that their position has not been put forward. However, if they think it through, they will see that their model of some cathartic "big bang" referendum will not solve the problem. The obsessive anti-Europeans will never accept the result. They will come back again and again, and keep demanding.
	The situation will be like the referendum in Palau. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware of that case. There was an issue about whether the US could station some military facilities there, and those involved voted seven times until they got the right result. The Eurosceptics will never accept the outcome, and so they will keep coming back. That undermines democracy and parliamentary sovereignty, and I do not believe that it is in the interests of the House or the British people to move to a referendum culture. We need to strengthen the power of the Select Committees and this House to scrutinise the Executive— [ Interruption. ] We need a more democratic second Chamber or to abolish the one that we have completely. We need greater media understanding. Where are the media? They do not report these debates and so the public are not made aware of them.  [ Interruption. ] For that reason, I shall vote against a referendum and support the Lisbon treaty.  [ Interruption. ]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I ask the Committee to come to order. Hon. Members know that this is no way in which to conduct a debate in this Chamber.

William Cash: Conservatives believe in "trust the people". The bottom line for the purposes of the debate is that we as a Parliament will decide whether a referendum will be granted, and I disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) when he says that we should not have referendums.
	There are 27 million voters. That is what we should be concentrating on. Since 1975, 27 million voters have not had the opportunity to express their view on the extension and accumulation of all the European legislation and treaties. It does not necessarily follow that we cannot come to some accommodation in the process of renegotiation as to what it is that we would end up with if we produced a no vote, but it is absolutely right that the voters of this country—for whom we hold our positions on trust—must be allowed to have their say.
	The Foreign Secretary rightly remarked mostly on the content of the treaty, but I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) that promises have been broken. It is a complete fraud for people to suggest that that is not the case. My right hon. and learned Friend, for whom I have the greatest respect, was rightly able to make his case, as was my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). I say that without prejudice to the reality at the heart of the process, which is that a vast amount of power is draining away from the House.
	We are elected by the voters, who have the right to have the final say. Why do I say that? It is simple. As the Foreign Secretary rightly said, the debate is about the content of the treaty, but it is also about what he called the constitutional balance of power. The structure of the relationship between the UK and the EU is being altered by the treaty, and that is the issue on which I shall concentrate and on which the debate should turn.
	The whole process was started off in a unique constitutional manner, with a mandate put forward by the German Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) mentioned their questionnaire. The mandate was agreed by the member states in a unique and unconstitutional manner.

Iain Duncan Smith: Behind closed doors.

William Cash: And behind closed doors. We cross-examined the then Foreign Secretary, who made it clear that she knew nothing about what was going on, officially. However, we know that the sherpas in UKRep, COREPER and so on were convened and carrying on negotiations behind the scenes. The questionnaire to which my right hon. Friend referred illustrates that point clearly. That is one fundamental constitutional change.

Hugo Swire: Will my hon. Friend give way?

William Cash: No, I want to get through my contribution as rapidly as possible, which is only fair to other hon. Members.
	The second fundamental constitutional change is the obligation on national Parliaments, which we have discussed in previous debates. Other changes are the merger of the existing treaties into a Union with a legal personality, and the collapse of the pillars. The intergovernmental method is being done away with on certain matters in favour of the Community method, thereby vastly increasing the powers of the European Court of Justice. That is another fundamental change in the constitutional relationship between the UK and the EU. We are giving enormous additional power to the ECJ. The accumulation of the new constitutional powers and the reciting of the primacy of law in declaration 17 mean that, for the first time, we have reinforced case law within the framework of a treaty. That is another constitutional change of the first order.
	The division of competences lies at the heart of how the EU and the UK operate. A House of Lords Select Committee made a similar point about them. Competences are the powers that are provided, and if we give powers to the EU, we are taking them away from the UK. I am not talking about specific powers, which are bad enough in themselves—for instance, the charter of fundamental rights was another constitutional change of the first order. I am saying, in essence, that changing the division of competences moves powers between the UK and the EU. I am clear about that, as are all other constitutional authorities. Even the Foreign Secretary admitted that there would be constitutional changes, some of which I do not like. They are predicated on the assumption that the EU will rather arrogantly say that it will be good enough to give us new powers in relation to the national Parliaments. Well, thank you very much, but we are a national Parliament that has been going for quite a long time. We have a history and a constitutional system that has stood the test of time and saved Europe from itself in two world wars— [ Interruption. ] Oh yes. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) should not shake his head—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman should return to the amendment.

William Cash: I am dealing with the constitutional implications of what the Foreign Secretary said. It is clear that in a range of matters in the construction of the treaty there is constitutional change of the first order between us and the EU. That is why a referendum is required. The Foreign Secretary used those criteria for a referendum in his argument. He said that if there were a structural change there ought to be a referendum, and, with respect Mrs. Heal, I am indicating that structural change is exactly what is happening in the treaty.
	Part of the issue relates to why we should want a referendum. It is because the House should have the humility to decide that we want to give the decision back to the voters. Furthermore, as I said in an intervention on a Liberal Democrat Member yesterday, there would be no point in staying in if we did not have the right to legislate in line with the wishes of the voters of the UK as expressed in general elections. That is the basis of our legislative process. We give effect to the wishes of voters.
	The plain fact is that unless we reassert the supremacy of our Parliament, as set out in my new clause 9, on which I expect us to be able to vote later, we would not be able to maintain our position in the EU. We must have a provision stating that notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972, we will continue to legislate on behalf of the voters of the UK and that the courts must give effect to the provision in any later Act even if it is inconsistent with the provisions of European legislation. That is not withdrawal. Case law is clear: such a measure would not repeal all the treaties; it is about particular provisions. My party agreed on amendments to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, which was pushed through both Houses, and we should do so again today.
	If the vote goes the wrong way, we need a post-ratification referendum, for the simple reason that the issues go to the very heart of the way our country is governed. We are elected to represent the interests of the people, and if we fall down we must give them the right to make their own decision in a referendum. That is why a referendum is required.

Chris Bryant: As many Members want to speak, I shall try to be as brief as possible. It is a great delight to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). There could be no two Members more diametrically opposed than him and me on nearly every issue, and certainly on Europe.
	What has been interesting about today's debate is first and foremost the fact that the Tory party has exposed itself as having an enormous problem about the European Union— [ Interruption. ] If the Tories can contain themselves, I shall move on to the Liberal Democrats in a moment. The Conservatives have form. Without a referendum they took through the Single European Act, which was probably the single biggest piece of legislation that dramatically affected the UK's relationship with the European Union, and they took through Maastricht without a referendum—in both cases on remarkably small majorities. So far, there have been 40 Divisions during our debates on the Bill and the average majority has been 170, almost a two-thirds majority in every case, so it is difficult to advance the argument for a referendum on that basis.
	Another problem for the Conservatives is that their party is radically split— [ Interruption. ] They can moan and groan, but none the less they will have to face the truth. It is not just that a few Conservative Members will vote with us; the much bigger division, which is why they are campaigning for a referendum, is between those who want to leave the European Union entirely and those who are a little bit more sensible in their policy towards Europe.
	The Conservatives' other problem is that they have no allies in Europe, so whenever they talk about renegotiating, as the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) did, they know perfectly well that they are deceiving the people of Britain, as there is nobody with whom they could negotiate. They would have either to have the kind of hissy-fit that the Liberal Democrats had last week, or back down from their position.
	It is for party management reasons, and from no point of principle, that the Conservative party has arrived at its position today, which is that there should be a referendum on any treaty whatever. That is what the shadow Foreign Secretary said; he said that any treaty that a Government brought forward should have to be put to a referendum. That is sheer nonsense, because the UK signs up to many treaties. None of them should be put to a referendum, because when any treaty has been negotiated, it is difficult to come to an informed position on it on the basis of a simple yes or no in a referendum.

Mark Harper: rose—

Chris Bryant: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I am sure that there are many people in the House who would like me to stop as soon possible.
	The Conservative party's position is that if the Bill is passed and the treaty is ratified, they will not let the matter rest there, to use the phrase that was leaked over the Christmas period. Let us enter Planet Cameron for a moment and imagine what would happen if there were a Conservative Government. Let us imagine the Leader of the Opposition becoming Prime Minister and going to his first European Council, having chosen not to let the matter rest there. He would turn to the new President of Europe and say, "Tony, as I'm your heir, could you possibly let us have a new treaty? Oh, and I apologise to you, Mr. Rodriguez Zapatero, Mr. Sarkozy and Mrs. Merkel, for not co-operating with your political parties or your Governments over the past few years, but it would be nice if you signed up to a different form of treaty." That would not happen. Instead, he would do exactly what the Liberal Democrats did last week—walk out of the room. That just goes to show that the Conservative position is not that of a potential future Government. The Conservative party's foreign policy is the foreign policy of an Opposition party who know perfectly well that they will remain in opposition.
	Let me turn to the Liberal Democrats—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please relate his remarks to the amendments before the House?

Chris Bryant: I shall follow your advice, Mrs. Heal. Let me turn to the Liberal Democrat position on referendums and on whether we should have one. It is time that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) came out. It is not that difficult in the end. It may mean being condemned by the  Daily Mail and  The Sun, but the truth is that it is fine to be a genuine pro-European. It is time that he and the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), who is not in the Chamber, owned up to the fact that they are pro-Europeans. The Liberal Democrats cannot hide that fact from the electorate. They cannot pretend that they really want a referendum, but that the wording is not right. They should put their heads above the parapet and own up to being the most pro-European party in the House, and to the fact that they would have signed up to whatever Europe had thrown forward.
	The truth is that this is a proxy debate. It is not really about referendums. It is about whether people want to be securely and firmly in the European Union, because they believe that in an uncertain world it is important to have stronger international institutions, or whether they believe that Britain can go it alone. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Stone, who has moved but who, I am glad to say, is still in the Chamber. I believe that there will not be a fundamental change. We will still set our own taxes, and have our own Army and Navy, and our own foreign and defence policy. There will not be a substantial change, which is why there should not be a referendum.

Peter Lilley: It is normally a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), but whereas all other Members who have spoken have recognised that the debate raises issues of principle that transcend and divide party, he chose to make a purely partisan speech, and made little contribution as a result.
	Twenty-five years ago, I was elected to the House—as was the Prime Minister, as it happens. Unlike the Prime Minister, who was elected on a pledge to leave the European Community, I have always believed, and still believe, in remaining a member of the European Community. I have grave reservations about handing over further powers, and there are some powers that we have handed over which I would like to see returned to this country, but the reason that I have, for the first time, actively taken part in debates on a European treaty is nothing to do with Europe. It is to do with integrity.
	Nothing in the 25 years that I have been in this place has made me so angry as to see members of two party Front Benches—or, should I say, the Front Benches of one and a half parties—who were elected on a clear pledge to the electorate that they would hold a referendum, telling their Back Benchers, as they themselves would be doing, to renege, to resile, to stand on their heads to renounce a clear promise that they had made to their electors. Nothing that I have ever seen in the House has made me so angry. That is why I resolved to participate in the debates and have done so every day since, in the limited number of days made available to us.
	I do not necessarily believe that there needed to be a referendum; perhaps there did not. Nor was it necessarily wise to promise a referendum; perhaps it was not. The constitution and the treaty may be desirable or may be undesirable. They may be more significant or less significant than previous treaties, but every party in the House made a promise that their electors would have a vote in a referendum on that constitutional treaty, and the treaty of Lisbon endorses and implements the substance of that constitution.
	Today hon. Members face a test of their personal integrity. That is what is at stake. I have no issue with those who told their electors beforehand and made it clear that they did not believe in and would not support a referendum. They are as pure as the driven snow. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who is present, is one of those and there are others on the Conservative Benches and in other parts of the House. However, if hon. Members repudiate a promise that they have made and from which they did not dissociate themselves at the time of the election, they bring contempt not merely upon themselves, but upon the House, the democratic process and the prospect of people voting in future elections.

Christopher Huhne: The key point is whether there has been a change in what we are determining, compared with the previous position. Has the right hon. Gentleman had time to consider the view of Professor Steve Peers of the university of Essex in a Statewatch analysis on the justice and home affairs issues, for example, where he says clearly that there is a major change? He states:
	"The introduction of a British and Irish opt out from this area of law is a major change from the text of the constitutional treaty".
	In light of that, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would prefer to temper his remarks about lack of integrity.

Peter Lilley: I will go straight to one of the arguments used by those who try to cover over the change of heart that they have had since before the election—that it should be a matter for Parliament that there has been a significant change. Parliament established a European Scrutiny Committee to investigate, decide and advise us on whether the Lisbon treaty was the same as the constitutional treaty. That Committee reported:
	"Taken as a whole, the Reform Treaty produces a general framework which is substantially equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty. Even with the 'opt-in' provisions on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, and the Protocol on the Charter, we are not convinced that the same conclusion does not apply to the position of the UK under the Reform Treaty."
	I think that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point.
	Those on the Front Bench have made it clear what they are going to do. It was positively embarrassing watching the Foreign Secretary squirming like a worm on a hook, if that is not rather unfair to worms, which do not deliberately place themselves on the hook. I wish Ministers had been as straightforward as Huey Long, a notoriously cynical senator in the United States of America, who on election promptly broke a solemn pledge that he had made to his electorate. When his advisers came to him and said, "What should we tell people who are asking why you changed your mind?" he said, "Tell 'em I lied." The trouble with the Minister, who is a charming and nice Member of Parliament, and the Liberal non-rebels is that they do not have Huey Long's integrity and they certainly lack his clarity.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman should think carefully about the language that he uses and the insinuation that he made.

Peter Lilley: I take your point, Mrs. Heal. I withdraw the point: they have the integrity of Huey Long.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of Parliament. I am sure that he wants to employ the taste and decency that usually characterise debates in the Chamber.

Peter Lilley: I take your point, Mrs. Heal, and entirely withdraw my previous remarks.
	The first argument that supporters of the change of heart deploy is that the Lisbon treaty is less important than previous treaties. The only question that faces those who made a promise about the constitution is how the treaty compares with it—not with Maastricht or any other reforming treaty, but with the one on which they promised their constituents a vote. The European Scrutiny Committee has said that the treaty is substantially the same as the constitution. We know that almost all the leaders in Europe who are free to do so have said that the documents are the same. No Minister has explained to us why the Spanish Prime Minister, the author of the constitution, Giscard d'Estaing, the Belgian Foreign Minister, the Italian Prime Minister and countless other leading lights should say things that are untrue. Why would they say that the two documents are fundamentally the same if they are fundamentally different? Ministers have not even addressed the point.
	The second argument is that no countries on the continent have held referendums on the Lisbon treaty. Of course they have not. Those that were required to hold referendums did so on the constitutional treaty. If they got a yes vote, they decided that they did not need another referendum on a document that is substantially the same. If they got a no vote, they decided not to get another biff in the face, and to pretend that the Lisbon treaty is different.
	The third argument is that all the Governments of Europe signed up to the statement that the constitutional concept had been abandoned. I have before me the words of the statement that was issued after the Council meeting. It does, indeed, state that the constitutional concept was abandoned, but it continued, in the same sentence and the next, that, instead of
	"repealing all existing Treaties and replacing them by a single 'constitution'...the Reform Treaty will introduce into the existing Treaties, which remain in force, the innovations resulting from the 2004 IGC."
	That IGC endorsed and decided to implement the European constitution. The statement makes no bones about it. Therefore, every time the Foreign Secretary quotes the statement without the second part, he misleads—unintentionally—the House of Commons and the British people.
	The fourth argument is obscure—indeed, it is designed to be obscure. As Samuel Johnson said, if you want to escape from a difficult hole, emulate the squid and squirt black ink in their faces while making your getaway. Supporters of the change of heart have adopted the argument that the constitutional treaty involved repealing all the existing treaties whereas the Lisbon treaty does not. They fail to say that the constitutional treaty abolished existing treaties but reintroduced all their powers in its text.
	There are always two possible ways in which to move from an existing treaty, or set of treaties, or existing law, or set of laws, to a new final text. The first is to amend, in detail, all the existing laws until they are brought into the relevant form and adjusted and amended until they equal a final text; the second is to repeal all the existing laws and treaties and replace them with a new text incorporating those laws and any changes.
	When we do that in this House—in respect, for example, of accumulated finance Bills—we normally call it a consolidation Bill. We consider it less, not more, important; we devote less time to it because it does not change any laws, but simply brings them all together. Essentially, what the European constitution did was to bring all the existing treaties together to make one document. If there is any doubt about the differences between those different routes, the Government have allayed them—they have published not only the Lisbon treaty, but the consolidated treaties that result from the Lisbon treaty. We know the final text that we have reached through the process of detailed amendment, and I have to report that it is almost identical to the consolidated text of the original European constitutional treaty. There is precious little difference, and the Government are adopting mere persiflage with their argument.
	The Government say that a referendum is incompatible with parliamentary government. With a great flourish, the Foreign Secretary ended by saying that we should do what electors pay us to do. Well, after the last election, they sent us to fulfil our promises. All of us, except those who had dissociated themselves from the manifesto promise, were sent here to implement the promise to have a referendum on this treaty. If we do not do so, we are not doing what the electors pay us to do.
	Those who believe in parliamentary government should be particularly wary, especially as that promise was made before the last election precisely to take out of the electoral arena the issue of whether the constitutional treaty should be ratified. People were told that that was done because they would have a separate vote on it in a referendum. If they are not to be granted that vote, Members were elected on false pretences—this House was elected having told people not to worry their little heads about Europe at the general election because they would face the decision later. It is an absolute abnegation of parliamentary democracy not to fulfil the pledge in those circumstances.
	Finally, people say that the treaty is only a modest step and is no bigger than previous treaties. However, each step brings us nearer to a final point. If someone is on their way to Beachy Head, the first few miles do not matter, but the last few steps near the edge matter a great deal. I shall cite Hegel and Marx, authorities who may have more force on the Government Benches. They said that beyond a certain point, quantitative changes result in a qualitative change. Beyond a certain point, accumulative slices of the cake through successive treaties bring about a substantive, qualitative change. Over a period, if we keep on allowing without any check such transfers of power from us to the European institutions, we will cease to be a nation delegating powers to ancillary bodies and ourselves become an ancillary body allowed only to exercise such powers as a nation called Europe allows us to.
	I do not think that my electors or those of any hon. Member want that to happen. If they do, they ought to have the chance to affirm it in a referendum and see whether they carry the day.

Michael Connarty: I have enjoyed today's debate because of the new characters who have appeared in the cast of this great endeavour. Now that we are on the 11th day of our consideration, it is good that people want to get their names on the record. It would have been nice if they had read the treaty and heard the earlier debates.
	I disagreed with the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) when he said that this was not a matter of detail. If people take the trouble to read the original European Scrutiny Committee report of October, they will see that it was matters of detail that flared up the treaty as a major item for public debate.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) said that he was loyal, ever loyal and, therefore, too loyal. That was probably the case for many who should have advised the former Prime Minister that he was making a major error when he felt that he had to call a referendum because of parliamentary considerations. I do not think that the question of a referendum was relevant to this treaty. Why did that happen? Was it a rush of blood to the head? I would say that it was probably a rush of fear in the focus groups, which seemed to have more influence on Government policies in the run-up to the election than the party's wishes on the matter.
	The Government benefit from being roughed up by Parliament, and from being roughed up by their own side. Being roughed up by the European Scrutiny Committee has made the Government and the Foreign Secretary go to Europe and fight our corner hard on a number of issues. They have brought back something different from the original treaty for a constitution. That is the reality; this treaty is significantly different. There would have been a European Foreign Secretary, a president of Europe and a constitution. It was a treaty for a constitution. Aided and abetted by the Dutch and French voters, who rejected it, there was a panic, and then a two-year period of reflection. Everyone is right: it was a question of getting the treaty under the wire so that it did not cause another series of referendums, at a cost to the progress that member states wanted after Laeken and after the Convention.
	We deal with many things every week involving EU powers that change the law-making relationship. Those EU powers are already in place in the Single European Act, Maastricht and Amsterdam. They are in processes we have had to opt into, such as the Schengen agreement, after the treaty of Amsterdam, to make a serious attempt to stop cross-border crime, terrorism, breaches of immigration and drug trafficking. That is why I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) was wrong—we cannot opt out and have a new relationship. We have to deal with such matters within the European Union.
	We have to progress with what we have, and what we have is—

Paul Farrelly: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Michael Connarty: No, I will not take interventions from someone who has just come in. People have been sitting here all day, and all week.
	It is important that people realise that what was sent by the "I Want a Referendum" campaign was a series of falsehoods—calumnies, in fact—concerning the work done by the European Scrutiny Committee. It sometimes chose to use half of a sentence, or even a quarter of a sentence. For example, it said that the Scrutiny Committee had said that the
	"Reform treaty was 'substantially equivalent' to the EU constitution."
	That was not what was said in the report. What was actually said was completely different:
	"What matters is whether the new Treaty produces an effect which is substantially equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty."
	The campaign just took the last part of that sentence and presented it as a fact. The report went on to say that for countries that did not have opt-outs and derogations, the treaty was substantially the same, but that that was not the case for the UK.
	What the referendum campaign sent out said that there would be a cut in the UK's voting strength. Not true; it is a lie. The UK's voting strength in the Council is going up because of the treaty. The campaign referred to immunity for Europol officers. People should read the report that we put out last week, which showed that the Home Office has won an agreement that Europol officers will not be given immunity. That is a fact; we have won that fight. It goes on and on, it says—

David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Connarty: No, I will not give way. I do not have time.
	The campaign refers to
	"a president...for the EU."
	The treaty will not create a president for the European Union; it will create a president of the Council, who will not be a member of the Commission.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Connarty: I am not going to give way; I do not have time. We have a short timetable.
	The campaign says that the treaty will create a Foreign Secretary for the EU. It will not. All those things are calumnies and lies, and they were in a document that was used to fool people. The campaign gave them a postcard, postage paid, to send back, so that it could call that a victory for a referendum.

David Heathcoat-Amory: On a point of order, Mrs. Heal. Is it in order for the Chairman of the Committee to misquote the report, which is not just in his name but in mine, too? That is an outrageous abuse of the House, so can you correct it?

The First Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order for the Chair; it is a matter for debate. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will get the opportunity to put the record straight.

Michael Connarty: The point is that the case is put in such a way as to suggest that the European Scrutiny Committee said something but did not expect the Government to respond. What we said—I am quoting from under the heading "the Constitutional Treaty and the Reform Treaty compared"—was that
	"we are not convinced that the same conclusion does not apply to...the Reform Treaty."
	However, we continued:
	"We look to the Government to make it clear where the changes they have sought and gained at the IGC alter this conclusion in relation to the UK."
	The Government came back and argued their case. We took a different view at different times, but let me put it on record that 48 amendments were tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and his colleagues, and that all of them were defeated. Nine of those amendments proposed a referendum. The question of a referendum was defeated nine times in the process of preparing the European Scrutiny Committee's report so, regardless of the— [ Interruption. ]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. There are far too many private conversations taking place. Hon. Members who have been in the Chamber throughout the afternoon wish to hear the conclusion of the debate.

Michael Connarty: I was a teacher for 14 years and I had more rowdiness in my classes than in here, but I enjoyed the dialogue then and I enjoy here, too.
	No one should leave the House saying that the European Scrutiny Committee did not consider the matter right to the end, including the question of a referendum. We took our job seriously, and I believe that those who have participated in the past 11 days of this debate have taken it seriously, too.

Angus Robertson: rose—

Michael Connarty: The hon. Gentleman is recorded as having voted against a referendum nine times in the Committee. I understand why Members of the Scottish National party intend to vote as they do, however, because of the competences, and I sympathise with them on that.

Angus Robertson: In fairness, will the Chairman of the Committee point out to the House that the reason why some of us voted against a referendum in the context that he is describing was that it was not part of the Committee's remit for that investigation?

Michael Connarty: If that was the reason, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has put it on the record.
	The main point for me is that those who took our business in the House seriously—those who read the treaty and referred to its substantive clauses—were doing the job that they were sent here to do. To say that that work should be done in a referendum is to abrogate our responsibilities as politicians.

Jim Murphy: I have six minutes to respond to what has been a fascinating and often humorous debate. As one of the few Members who has spoken who was not here for the debates on the Maastricht treaty, it has been very interesting for me to hear the speeches for the first time.
	We heard an excellent speech from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), who reminded us of his personal history as a Euro rebel turned party leader. That joint history is part of the reason why his party denied him the opportunity to be defeated at a general election.
	As I think everyone accepts, the shadow Foreign Secretary comes to the House in the middle of the afternoon and treats us to a series of excellent after-dinner speeches.
	We also heard from the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who is now in his place again. He made an excellent and telling contribution, which is why the former Prime Minister, John Major, was absolutely wrong when he said that the hon. Gentleman was
	"obsessive, driven and, on Europe, frankly a bore".
	That was of course entirely unfair.

William Cash: I regard that statement, from that particular gentleman, as a tribute.

Jim Murphy: When Conservative Members decry their former Prime Minister, who did so much, where he could, to keep the Conservative party in the European mainstream, that, more than anything else, reflects just how much the party has changed in recent years.
	The Lisbon treaty is, as we know, the conclusion of the collapse of communism—a freeing of the human spirit that we all celebrated—and the decision of the countries concerned to join the European Union, so that we now have 27 member states and we need to reform our structures.
	There are big questions before us this evening that the Opposition have as yet been unable to answer. For example, which specific line-by-line proposals in the Lisbon treaty make it more significant than the Maastricht treaty?

James Clappison: The Minister's point would have more force if we had had the opportunity that we were promised to scrutinise the provisions on borders, immigration and defence.

Jim Murphy: I take that answer to mean "none". The hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity—as have all hon. Members here this evening—to state which specific proposals in the Lisbon treaty he thinks make it more significant than the Maastricht treaty, on which the Conservatives refused to have a referendum.

Richard Shepherd: I am glad that we are able to get in obliquely like this. It is the accumulation of five or six treaties that has led us here— [ Interruption. ] No one in this country under the age of 57 has ever had the opportunity to express a view on this business.

Jim Murphy: The Conservatives are judged by their words. The hon. Gentleman cannot identify a specific proposal in the Lisbon treaty that makes it more significant than the Maastricht treaty. He is a supporter and member of the Better Off Out campaign. He has the honesty of holding that view and commitment, and that is a growing trend among Back Benchers in the Conservative party, which continues to gallop ever closer towards Eurosceptic isolationism. The Conservatives also refuse to acknowledge the consequences of their isolationism, which has captured most—although, of course, not all—of today's Conservative party. No previous Conservative Government ever offered a referendum on a European amending treaty. No conservative Government anywhere in the European Union are even considering holding a referendum on this treaty. No conservative Opposition in any country of the European Union are demanding a referendum as our Conservative Opposition are doing.
	We have heard today from my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) and for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), the Chairs of the relevant Select Committees. The Foreign Affairs Committee voted against a referendum not once but twice, and the European Scrutiny Committee voted against a referendum not once, not twice, but on nine separate occasions.
	The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) will have the opportunity in a moment to tell the House which other conservative parties or Governments in the European Union are opposing the treaty and demanding a referendum as his party is doing. It is clear that his once influential party—which was the party of Europe for 30 years, in a tradition set by Macmillan and Heath—has, in the main, been reduced to an isolationist, anti-European rabble. That is a policy set and dictated by the hon. Member for Stone. It represents a victory of ideology over national interest, and this Parliament should not give such a policy its consent this evening.

Mark Francois: This has been a debate about broken promises. First, the Government promised a referendum. Then, in lieu of a referendum, they promised the House of Commons 20 days of detailed parliamentary debate. Then they broke that promise, and allocated only 14 days—less than half the number given to debate the treaty of Maastricht. Then they broke that promise. They told us that we would give the Bill line-by-line scrutiny, but they so manipulated the debate that the detailed scrutiny of the amendments was left until the end of the day, and large groups of amendments were not debated at all, including critical amendments on borders, visas, immigration, asylum, defence, social policy and the free movement of workers. None of those provisions was subjected to line-by-line scrutiny at all, yet such scrutiny was the Government's main excuse for not granting a referendum in the first place.
	I turn first to the Foreign Secretary's speech. At the risk of being ungallant to him, I must say that he did not have a very good day. First, he tried to argue that the Government had originally promised a referendum on the EU constitution because it represented fundamental changes to our relationship with the European Union. Then, when he was pressed further, the right hon. Gentleman said that it did not represent a fundamental change in our relationship with the EU. Taking interventions from all sides, he completely dropped the ball when he said that the reason why the Government promised a referendum in the first place was that they needed to "clear the air". Well, if we needed to clear the air then, why do we not clear the air now and give the people of this country the referendum that they were promised? If that is the only argument that the Foreign Secretary can put to the House, I look forward to the rapid promotion of the Minister for Europe.
	Let me turn now to deal with those parliamentary statesmen, the Liberal Democrats, who are planning, I am told—with some honourable exceptions—to abstain constructively. They have no mandate for an in/out referendum in their 2005 manifesto, which promised a referendum on the EU constitution and gave no promise on an in/out referendum. They are arguing a case to paper over the cracks in their policies without any endorsement from the people who sent them to this House of Commons. That is the mess that they find themselves in. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) made the point about the missing cojones—and I have to say that, at the end of this debate, they have still not been discovered. The Government lost a pair of discs; the Liberal Democrats lost a pair of something else—and they have not yet been found.
	Tonight we are taking an important decision for our country, so what are the Liberal Democrats going to do? What is the party of Lloyd George, Asquith and Gladstone going to do tonight when the future of our country is in the balance? They are going to go and hide in the toilets because they do not have the guts to vote on the question either one way or the other! And it is the Liberal Democrats who promise us a new politics, a politics of change. If that is all they have to offer, they should go back to the starting board and start again.
	The two documents are the same. The Council mandate of the intergovernmental conference 2004 brought forward almost all the same innovations. That is how it was done. The European Scrutiny Committee said that the two were substantially equivalent and Valéry Giscard d'Estaing summed it up perfectly when he said:
	"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly...All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."
	In the latest poll, 88 per cent. of the British people wanted a referendum. This House collectively, and all parties, gave their word that they would have it. We dishonour this place if we do not keep that promise. We say: let the promise be kept, let the question be put, let the Commons retain its honour in the eyes of the public, and let the people decide.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 248, Noes 311.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 It being more than six hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee, The Chairman  put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the busine ss to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Orders [28 January and 3 March].
	 Amendment proposed: No. 296, page 4, leave out line 8 and insert—
	'(2A) Section [Referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon (No. 2)] and Schedule [Conduct of the Referendum (No. 2)] come into force on Royal Assent.
	(2B) The other provisions of this Act come into force if an affirmative answer has been given to the question specified in section [Referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon (No. 2)] in a referendum held in accordance with that section and Schedule [Conduct of the Referendum (No. 2)] and any legal challenge made under that Schedule has been disposed of by the court or courts in question.'.— [Mr. Davidson.]
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 247, Noes 311.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 355, Noes 218.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Anne Main: On a point of order, Sir Alan. I seek your guidance. I disapprove of the Liberal Democrats' principled abstention, but I disapprove even more of hon. Members, particularly those on the Government Benches, photographing those making that principled abstention.

Alan Haselhurst: Order. I hope that it is understood across the Committee that taking pictures on a camera in the Chamber is completely out of order. A device was in evidence that was clearly not being used for a telephone conversation, although that, too, would be out of order. I will report the matter to Mr. Speaker at the earliest opportunity.

New Clause 9
	 — 
	Supremacy of Parliament

'Notwithstanding any provision of the European Communities Act 1972, nothing in this Act shall affect or be construed by any court in the United Kingdom as affecting the supremacy of the United Kingdom Parliament.'.— [Mr. Cash.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.
	 Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	 The Committee proceeded to a Division.

The Chairman: Order. I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The Committee having divided: Ayes 48, Noes 380.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Bill reported, without amendment.
	 Third Reading tomorrow.

PETITIONS

UK Foreign Policy (Israel and the Palestinians)

Stephen Williams: I wish to present a petition collected by constituents in Bristol, West.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of constituents of Bristol West,
	Declares that despite ongoing human rights violations and the UK government's own export guidelines, the UK has consistently licensed exports to Israel for military equipment, thus providing material support for Israeli aggression, and sending a message of approval for its actions; further declares that the Israelis have declared Gaza a "hostile entity" within a "conflict short of war" and that the collective punishment of a civilian population is prohibited in international law.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to seek to end the siege on the Palestinians and to support Palestinian democracy by stopping arming Israel; reconsidering the UK's policy of refusing to provide aid to the Palestinian Authority following Hamas' election victory in January 2006 and pressing Israel to release all elected Palestinian parliamentarians, as well as other political prisoners; to censure the decision by the Israel cabinet to impose sanctions on supplies of electricity, fuel, and other basic goods and services to the civilian population of Gaza, to cease colluding with this act of State Terrorism against innocent people; and to work towards a just solution based on international law and an end to Israeli occupation.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000138]

EU Constitution (Referendum)

Bob Spink: I rise to present a petition about the Government and MPs' duty to honour their promise of a referendum on the EU treaty. The vote just taken rejecting the referendum marks a low ebb in the history of this Parliament and represents a disgraceful betrayal of the British people.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is familiar with the procedure when petitions are presented. No speech is allowed, just a few minutes of comments, and that is all.

Bob Spink: I accept your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, and will keep my remarks to at least half a few minutes.
	Tonight's vote represents a disgraceful betrayal of the British people and illustrates why the House is at a lower ebb than I can ever recall in my lifetime.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that there is a heading on the petition that it would be appropriate to read, rather than continuing the debate that has just concluded.

Bob Spink: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is my understanding that the traditions of the House allow hon. Members, when presenting a petition, to make some introductory remarks focusing on the contents of that petition. It is also a tradition of the House that hon. Members are allowed one or two minutes in which to do that—a maximum of two minutes is stated. I wonder whether I could be allowed to follow that tradition.

Madam Deputy Speaker: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is of course allowed to do so on the petition itself, but not on all the detail surrounding it? The words on the head of the petition will be a very good guide to him.

Bob Spink: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will accept your ruling and read out what the petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Castle Point and others supporting the Telegraph EU Petition,
	Declares that the EU Reform Treaty will significantly affect the constitutional arrangements between the UK and EU, and affect the way Britain is governed, permanently removing powers from Parliament to Brussels, particularly through a European Head of State, an EU diplomatic corps and Foreign Minister, a common system of criminal justice and a European Public Prosecutor, the abolition of 40 vetoes, bestowing a legal personality, treaty making powers and therefore all the trappings of statehood on the EU, and reducing Britain's strength on the Council of Ministers by 30 per cent., and that all the main parties promised a referendum at the last general election and that those MPs who now renege on their election promise will be held to account when they seek to make further election promises.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to consult the people before ratifying the Treaty.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000140]

DEVONPORT AND THE ROYAL NAVY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Watts.]

Linda Gilroy: Last week, Plymouth was awash with rumours that our naval base was to close within five years, that our dockyard was in danger, and that the Royal Navy was being run down and let down. Some found this bizarre and bemusing, but others were worried, and, for those who were worried, I was angry because it was all so unnecessary. I was even more concerned to hear of one person, who was set to move their home from up north to Devonport, bringing with them valuable skills, who was nearly put off doing so.
	I want to start by looking at the role of the Royal Navy in the 21st century, and at the threats that it is being configured to face. Understanding those factors is crucial to understanding the future for Devonport. Opportunities, as well as challenges, arise from the revolution in British military capabilities and, as ever, there will be a central role for the Royal Navy, which our city has such a proud record in supporting.
	In the cold war, the Navy existed principally to counter the threat of Soviet submarines in the Greenland-Faroes-Iceland gap. It does not take a strategic genius to realise that that threat has pretty much gone. There might be concerns about Russia, but they are now of a very different character and scale. The cold war gave rise to the need for large numbers of anti-submarine frigates, small aircraft carriers carrying anti-submarine helicopters, and deep-water minesweepers optimised for the cold north Atlantic.
	The threats of today and tomorrow arise from international terrorism and from rogue or failing states. These in turn are intertwined with a series of other issues, such as the rise of piracy, the trafficking of drugs and people, and humanitarian disasters. It is perhaps more difficult to articulate the threat now than it was during the cold war or in the first half of the 20th century. Indeed, the uncertainty that now exists in the world is in many ways the danger itself.
	Today, the deployment of our armed services most often takes place in coalition alongside the US and others. Forty other countries are involved in the NATO international security assistance force mission in Afghanistan, and more than 20 are involved in Iraq. As the years go by, a European coalition might become an increasingly likely basis for deploying a joint capability. It is against that background that the announcement about the 65,000-tonne aircraft carriers needs to be viewed.
	Britain is one of a handful of NATO countries that has largely got to grips with making changes to ensure that our armed forces, and their equipment, are relevant to the challenges that we face today and the threats that we may face tomorrow, and that they are interoperable with those of key allies. For the Royal Navy, that has meant a transformation from a cold war force to a versatile, multifaceted fleet with a range of capabilities. Out have gone the large numbers of escorts optimised for anti-submarine warfare, and in their place have come larger aircraft carriers, new amphibious ships, better kit for the Royal Marines—as well as more Royal Marines—a new generation of nuclear submarines, and the maritime airborne surveillance and control aircraft, which will provide general situational awareness and be able to control the carriers' aircraft. There will also be a fleet of more flexible and agile vessels, in the shape of the future surface combatant.
	Today's Navy is making a significant contribution to the present conflicts, in the form of landing forces, artillery bombardment in support of ground forces, the minesweepers that clear Iraqi ports, and naval auxiliaries delivering humanitarian supplies, to name but a few. Even in landlocked Afghanistan, huge numbers of naval personnel—including reservists—are involved. The Royal Navy is unique among the three services in operating not only at sea, but on the land and in the air. Many people outside communities such as Plymouth fail to realise that the Royal Marines, who have been fighting with such intensity in Afghanistan and Iraq are, in fact, part of the Navy. Likewise, many of the aircraft so vital to operations in those countries are naval aircraft flown by naval pilots.
	This country needs a strong Royal Navy as much now as it ever has. In no way is it being sidelined, but it must be tailored to the needs of today and tomorrow. We need large carriers that can deploy significant numbers of aircraft anywhere in the world they are needed, so as to avoid relying on foreign airfields and the diplomatic implications and restrictions that that can bring. We need submarines armed with missiles that can strike deep inland with pinpoint accuracy, that can gather intelligence, or that can land special forces. That is why the Government have equipped all our fleet submarines with Tomahawk and are building a new generation of Astute class submarines.
	We need amphibious ships that can carry troops and their equipment and that can deploy them ashore by landing craft, by helicopter or directly onside—or, conversely, evacuate British nationals or foreign civilians from harm's way, as we saw happening two summers ago in Lebanon. The helicopter carriers, assault ships and landing ships represent a complete modernisation of our entire amphibious flotilla. We need sealift vessels and support ships that can support forces ashore for extended periods of time. That is why the Government will renew the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service through the military afloat reach and sustainability project.
	I sometimes wonder whether the Opposition have cottoned on to the importance and the nature of those changes. So much of what they say seems to be rooted in cold war thinking, just as their economic policy is in Thatcherism and their social policy is in Victorian thinking. Certainly, they seem very preoccupied with ship numbers rather than appreciating that what is really important is having a wide, balanced and flexible range of capabilities.
	The Navy has a very positive future, as central to UK defence policy as the other services. The transformation of capabilities to meet modern threats is covered in an excellent article by Dr. Eric Grove in the February 2008 edition of the parliamentary briefing, "Tomorrow's Royal Navy for Tomorrow's World". He concludes that when all of this change has worked through:
	"It would be hard to deny that such a capability did not make the UK a world power of significance, as one would expect from a country with one of the largest defence budgets in the world. Observers might well then be looking back at the Brown years as those when the seeds were finally laid for a renaissance of British Maritime power and global presence."
	As my noble Friend the Minister with responsibility for defence equipment and support said loud and clear in an article for Plymouth's  The Herald last week, Devonport, its naval base and its dockyard are central to that future.
	Let me deal specifically with Devonport's role. I am pleased to see in her place on the Front Bench my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) in her role as Whip. Devonport will be the only yard in the UK with the capability to undertake important work on nuclear submarines. I am certain that our prudent Prime Minister and our Chancellor of the Exchequer are not going to replicate the £1 billion investment in the infrastructure that was made in the D154 dock any time soon. The dockyard has two more refuelling refits on the Vanguard class submarines, Vigilant and Vengeance. Thereafter, there will probably be two, if not three, life extension refits on the Vanguard boats, pending introduction of the new deterrent, for which Parliament gave the go-ahead for the design stage last year. That equates to 12 to 14 years' work for a Babcock Devonport work force of more than 2,500 people.
	In parallel, the yard's unique facilities mean that the dockyard will be there to carry out deep maintenance periods on the Trafalgar class—wherever they are based—because of the docking constraints at Faslane. There is also the de-fuelling programme, so it is nonsense to talk of our dockyard being in danger under current Government policy, as the contracts in hand amount to more than £1 billion over the next 10 years.
	Of course, deep maintenance work on surface ships will be essential to help with the peaks and troughs of the submarine work load. Irrespective of base-porting issues, as it moves to complete the terms of the business agreement with Babcock for the purchase of the dockyard during the course of this year and as it seeks to agree these matters with the other major marine companies through the surface ship support alliance, Ministry of Defence commercial arrangements will need to recognise that. As the new carriers are built, Rosyth's capacity will be fully occupied, allowing further surface ship refits to be allocated to Devonport—an issue to which I will return.
	We are, of course, already home to the Navy's biggest amphibious ships, Albion and Bulwark. Plans are under way to move Royal Marine assets into the south yard. With that, the naval base can become a centre of excellence for amphibious warfare. We are also home to the Navy's hydrographic surveying squadron—five ships that do vital work in charting the world's oceans. With the Met Office in Exeter, the Hydrographic Office in Taunton—both MOD agencies—and the fast developing, world-class marine science partnership based in Plymouth itself, our region has a cluster of complementary activities in marine science and engineering that can only grow with climate change, which is such a strongly emerging challenge. We are bidding strongly to become the home for the new marine management organisation, which will come with the marine Bill.
	Since the Conservatives closed Portland naval base in the 1990s, we have been home to Flag Officer Sea Training and its staff. As First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathon Band says:
	"It is the quality of our people that underpin all that the Royal Navy does: dedicated; motivated; well trained; and loyal. Their determination, courage and selfless attitude has been displayed time and again."
	FOST is what gives focus to that. It puts through their paces not just British warships, but foreign warships from numerous navies. Plymouth's hosting of scores of warships each year from every corner of the globe is a hugely valuable asset. However, if Devonport is to continue to provide its excellent service to the Navy, key considerations must be respected. I have made them clear in countless meetings with Ministers at both the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury, and I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that the messages have sunk in.
	First, there is the constant need to ensure that the strategically important nuclear work force is maintained. Skills, expertise and experience must not be allowed to atrophy, or to be lost in the periods between submarine refits. As I said, it is vital for Devonport to secure sufficient maintenance and refit work on surface ships.
	Secondly, there is the importance of respecting our nuclear covenant. Devonport is currently home to operational nuclear submarines, to those undergoing refit and to those awaiting disposal. The people of Plymouth have always been supportive and understanding of that, but they will not tolerate Devonport without a broader thriving defence sector. Stripping out the fleet base-porting and warship refit work and leaving only submarine work is not acceptable. Apart from the need for such work to maintain the skills base, we must gain positive benefit and local economic prosperity through a broad base of surface ship work.
	Thirdly, Plymouth must remain an operational base for the Royal Navy. Refits and maintenance are not enough. In 1997 I inherited from my Conservative predecessor a constituency that contained the poorest ward in England, which was not unrelated to the careless way in which the Tories had allowed the dockyard to be run down in the 1990s.
	I think the message has been received that the MOD must play its part in removing jobs from the overheated south-east, which includes Portsmouth. I know that the MOD is delivering on its targets, but I know from my work in the Select Committee on Defence that it could do more.
	As I have said, I am grateful for the countless meetings to which my right hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues have agreed, but I am sure he will not be surprised to hear that I have a list of questions to put to him. Satisfactory answers to those questions would help us to chart the way forward for Devonport in the immediate future.
	First, following the naval base review we need assurances that all possible help will be forthcoming to enable surplus land to be released quickly, along with the support and investment that will be necessary to deal with its decontamination. For decades we have complained that the MOD is slow when it comes to dealing with land release. On this occasion Project Roundel has been introduced in double-quick time, but we need to know that it will continue to proceed rapidly, and in a way that maximises benefit to the local economy beyond the term of the current base commander, Commodore Simon Lister, who has done so much to make this happen.
	Secondly, assurances have been given by the naval base review team leader to the Devonport task force group, which I chair—and at the recent meeting between my right hon. Friend, Plymouth Members of Parliament and trade union leaders—that work will continue to be done to assess socio-economic issues associated with the follow-through from the naval base review, and any issues arising from the base-porting of ships.
	Will my right hon. Friend confirm that detailed information will be available to enable a full and transparent assessment to be made of any socio-economic impact that arises from any of the changes? How near are we to knowing where we are on base-porting issues? Is the date days, weeks or months away? Can he scotch the rumour unleashed among others last week that FOST will be moved from Plymouth?
	My final question—for now—concerns the future surface combatant. I know that it is still at the very early initial-concept stage. Can my right hon. Friend tell us something about the role of those vessels, and will he ensure that serious consideration can be given to a role for Devonport in leading in-service support for them?
	Plymouth's defence sector remains vital to our local economy, and as a city we need to be on the front foot to ensure that it remains vibrant. I believe that, as Babcock Marine has established its headquarters in Plymouth, we have every reason to be confident not just about naval base activity and our traditional role in submarines but about new as well as traditional ways of supporting the Royal Navy, and the many activities associated with its surface ships of today and tomorrow.
	I am grateful to have had the opportunity to present those issues to the Minister, and I look forward to hearing his response.

Bob Ainsworth: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) on securing the debate, and it is good to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) is present to support her. The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton made it clear why she is considered to be a champion not only of her city but of the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines.
	I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and the House that recent suggestions that we are planning to close the naval base at Devonport are without foundation, and I can confirm that there are no plans for flag officer sea training to move from Devonport. I will address her other questions later.
	Devonport, along with the other naval bases at the Clyde and Portsmouth, will continue to provide the support that ensures that our Navy remains one of the best in the world. The defence industrial strategy laid down a challenge to the UK maritime industry to reduce its overheads and invest in the facilities and skills needed to meet the future demands of the Royal Navy. It was clear that we could not rely on industry alone to achieve the necessary rationalisation. Therefore, in September 2006, we launched the naval bases review. After a period of analysis, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced in July of last year that all three naval bases were to be retained and optimised. That decision secured the futures of the naval bases and remains the position today. Since that announcement, work has been progressing at each of the naval bases to improve the efficiency of the support provided. Going forward, this implementation work has now been incorporated into a single programme: the maritime change programme.
	Industry has a big part to play in the rationalisation, as Devonport has seen through the acquisition of Devonport Management Ltd by Babcock Marine. That is an important step in the managed rationalisation of the UK maritime industrial base. Along with the formation of the joint venture between BAE Systems and VT Group, it is a key component in ensuring long-term balance in supply and demand after the carrier. It will also help to embed the right behaviours and benefits into ship-build and support programmes as we move to through-life solutions.
	Devonport is playing an integral part in the maintenance and upkeep of the Royal Navy surface fleet. Babcock Marine has recently completed the successful upkeep of the Type 22 frigate HMS Cumberland, and is currently undertaking a similar overhaul of the Navy's helicopter carrier, HMS Ocean. Babcock Marine, along with Fleet Support Ltd at Portsmouth, is working closely with the Ministry of Defence to allocate future upkeep packages through the auspices of the surface ship support project.
	In addition, Devonport is a vital element of the UK's submarine programme. Babcock Marine is providing direct support to the Navy's submarine flotilla; for example, a significant milestone was recently achieved when HMS Victorious was successfully refloated in her dock. That was a significant step in a complex three-year project to refuel and refit the submarine. We have to be realistic, however, and must not lose sight of the fact that the number of ships requiring maintenance and repair has been reducing, and in the future as the older classes of submarines leave service and we introduce more capable vessels requiring less maintenance, it will be inevitable that fewer refits will be required.
	I know that my hon. Friend has been working hard with other stakeholders in Plymouth to develop further the city and build for the future. It is only right that its future should build on the success of its maritime past. While I know that the potential loss of jobs recently announced by Babcock is disappointing, there is still, as I have said, much to celebrate.
	I can assure my hon. Friend that through the maritime change programme we will continue to work closely with Babcock Marine to devise an optimal programme of submarine and surface ship work in order to maintain what is a most valuable skill base. I can also reassure her that I, my ministerial colleagues and officials in the Department are fully aware of the local feeling in Devonport about the mix of submarine and ship support work.
	As my hon. Friend knows, we are committed to making further investment in Devonport over the next few years. This includes the approval of a £180 million investment to upgrade nuclear refitting facilities and to support the decommissioning of nuclear submarines. There has been recent discussion in various quarters that some of the Royal Navy vessels based at Devonport might be moved. I want to reassure my hon. Friend that we have not taken any decisions to change the base-porting arrangements for ships or boats at Devonport, or at the other two naval bases.
	As my hon. Friend is aware, the Department is undertaking a planning round. In it, we always consider a number of different options, many of which are not taken beyond initial consideration. I stress that no decisions have yet been made, and while I am unable to give an indication of the timetable for those decisions, I can reiterate the assurances that I have given to my hon. Friend on other occasions that I am committed to keeping her and others informed throughout the process. As the maritime change programme moves forward, we will continue fully to engage with a wide range of stakeholders, including the trade unions and other Government Departments, as well as those locally in the south-west, as more detailed plans become available.
	As my hon. Friend said, it is important that the Department does not take decisions without understanding the socio-economic and environmental impact of any changes at any of the naval bases. I can assure her that my officials and I will be as open as possible with her and the local authority.
	To answer my hon. Friend's other questions, Project Roundel—the sale of land at the Devonport estate—is at an early stage and it is too early to determine the time scales for disposal. However, I can confirm that our intention is to work closely with the local authority in a way that benefits the local economy. I can understand her concern that we move that project forward as soon as we are able.

Linda Gilroy: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that will proceed quickly, and that the change of base commander will not affect the speed at which it happens?

Bob Ainsworth: As I said, I cannot give a time scale, but it is not my intention to delay the process. As I also said, I will be as open as I can with my hon. Friend going forward. We do not want to delay the process; we want to move forward with it as quickly as we can.
	The future surface combatant is expected to build on the capabilities of the existing Type 22 and Type 23 frigates. This capability includes delivering maritime force protection, providing maritime security to deployed forces, global maritime reach and maritime support to civil organisations. The FSC is at the early stages of concept design and the detailed user requirements have not yet been defined, so I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend the assurances she requested. However, I can assure her that there are no reasons at the moment why Devonport should not be considered to have a role in the support of these vessels.

Linda Gilroy: In concluding, could my right hon. Friend confirm my understanding that Babcock Marine, which has just purchased our dockyard, is the leading surface ship support supplier in the UK and has an extremely high reputation with the integrated project team at Abbey Wood, with whom it deals?

Bob Ainsworth: It most certainly does, so it is well placed to bid for this work, but as I have said, it is early days and I cannot offer the confirmation that my hon. Friend doubtless wants me to offer. I know that she will keep badgering me until I do so.
	Finally, I take the opportunity to reiterate that we have no plans to close any of the naval bases, including Devonport. It would be wrong, however, if we did not continue carefully to consider how best to support the Royal Navy and to ensure that waterfront activity is delivered in an efficient and sustainable manner.

Linda Gilroy: On the support to the Royal Navy, will the Minister confirm that there are no plans to move the flag officer sea training from Plymouth?

Bob Ainsworth: At the start of my speech, I said to my hon. Friend that there are no plans to move FOST from Devonport. I am happy to repeat both that and my pledge to keep her, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport and other local stakeholders, including the local authority, trade unions and others who represent the community in Plymouth, as informed as I am able as these important decisions go forward. If I did not do so, I am sure my life would not be worth living.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Eight o'clock.